First I have added 5 videos taken during my presentation of my work to an international group of scientisits. My presentation was recieved much better than I expected because I know its fairly radical which doesn't mean its wrong or on the wrong track. I believe strongly that its on the right track.

http://www.gpofr.com/videos.aspx

I have also added a simulations tab to the homepage - a star system changing into a atom.

http://www.gpofr.com/documents/sims/Star2Atom/publish.htm

Lastly, I have added to the library page a document title "GPRA Project - Evolution 2.0 - Hypothesis".

http://www.gpofr.com/library.aspx

Recently I had a discussion by email about Darwinism and Intelligent Design:

"I'm of the school that infinity does exists (Universal size for example) but I also believe that introducing infinity to any equation breaks all the rules in regards to probability and this includes existence of an infinite entity. I'm not saying I believe in God because I like to debate to-and-fro about his existence. I like to play the devil's advocate on almost all subjects (so Greg we share a kinship there...dissentship). What I really don't like are conclusive statements either for or against. I'd rather hear, " I don't know," or," based on this there is a probability." Of course we're all guilty of making conclusive statements, but I also find science full of them (and their arguments should have been well thought out to be part of mainstream...evolution of science of sorts) which is why I don't like Neo-Darwinism way before I got involved on the outskirts of science. Let's say that Big Bang theory is wrong (partially or whole) and that the Universe has actually existed for an infinite amount of time and that the whole Universe is spacially infinite, with that I can in a probability formula (using a 3-spacial & 1-time matrix in a computer program) determine that there is an infinite probability that any formation is possible including any type of life form. The problem is it also includes, or concludes, an infinite probability for an infinite living entity (a life form that is all of space and time...has always existed and is everywhere) and that it is also probably infinitely intelligent. It's really crazy, but interesting. Essentially, we are all part of this life form (pantheistic view). When I've debated for God's existence (over a cold beer usually) the main argument against was usually, " why doesn't he make himself known?" and my answer has always been the same, " how do you expect him to say hi?" What I mean is how do you think an infinite entity should say/express or manifest himself? The answer is probably the simplest. This entity is probably always expressing himself through nature, over time, even through our own human actions because we are part of this entity. If I or you say hi, then it can be taken as this entity saying hi. Question then becomes, who is initiating the action, you or this entity and can we differentiate even if we knew. Of course I can debate that an infinitely large entity doesn't necessarily mean its infinitely intelligent (it's just an infinite probability) or that he created anything in his entity (like you or me), but you can't conclusively say ya or nay to that question. I think the reality is Darwinism and Intelligent Design together are are probably correct. Perhaps that's the rule. Opposing schools together make the correct theory for any subject.  

Ok last video. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc&feature=related

Richard Dawkins proposing highly intelligent life designing life on Earth. The obvious question is how did that highly intelligent life come about, and was itself created in a similar fashion also designed by a higher intelligent life ... and so on."

Continued correspondence:

"I agree in intelligent design as in intelligent people designing and building things. I also believe that we are the most intelligent beings on this planet but not necessarily in the whole Universe, and with that in mind, if other more intelligent beings exist out there than we as humans can't comprehend the engineering marvels by these other beings. It's like a dog trying to understand how his master built his dog house. Essentially I believe in fractal intelligent design because we're doing it, or on the verge of doing it, today in computer science with AI and robotic technology. Self reproducing AI's that preform a specific task such as maintenance (another discussion about entropy decaying everything unless its maintained). Point is that's what we can do now at our level of intelligence so imagine what a much higher intelligence can do? Its incomprehensible to us. In a fractal intelligent design perspective, a highly intelligent species builds another less-intelligent species (like a robot of sorts mechanically or genetically) who in turn has the ability to learn and improve themselves and could actually in time design and make another species...and so on. I believe in that, but to believe that then you have to also go that extra mile and bring infinity into the equation. Fractally at an infinitely high intelligence, what can such an entity make/create? His creations would be incomprehensible to our level of understanding. And then there is designing species where the designer inherently maintains control over every aspect of his creation through the programming, the designed mechanics and the designed environment (enclosure like a cage or...computer matrix). And what about the intelligent entities near but not at an infinite intelligence? Infinity breaks all the rules when you apply it to probability equations and fractal mathematics. Have you every wondered what it would mean if the light speed limit of c was removed (not that it actually is a speed limit at all). It means that an infinite velocity would be possible and that brings with it a lot of craziness, like an object traveling at infinity being everywhere in the infinite Universe at the same time. So if it takes, as a rule of thumb (and history shows this), that the more intelligent a species/people become the faster they can travel (through engineering breakthroughs), than at an infinite intelligence that species or entity can be everywhere at the same time. But an object, or entity, traveling at infinity and being able to be everywhere at the same time has huge implications. Does it mean that this object becomes space itself it is literally everywhere?? In my scaling theory (Realitivistic Relativity), at an infinite velocity an object would become infinitely small, a point singularity, and could be everywhere at the same time all the time. Now what if that object is intelligent? Could this intelligent entity traveling at an infinite velocity change the mechanics of physics as we know it at will because he is in between every physical event/action? I can't even fathom the implications on fractal existence of things in a space where the space's main body is an object, or entity, traveling at infinity making up that space or existing in the space. The whole thing is crazy, but we have to push the limits if only for argument sake.

As far as I'm concerned (and agreeing with you), if God exists, and I'm inclined to believe that he does based on my own research, than he expresses himself through us in our actions, consciousness, derivative works (like the Bible) and in everything around us through the infinite levels of fractal life at an incomprehensible level."

Static Frame of Reference

In regards to the question of an absolute rest/static frame of reference. It exists if the Universe is infinite and is defined simply through concept and mathematics.

Conceptually, the larger the system (star system -> galaxy -> galaxy cluster -> super galaxy cluster) the slower the system changes.

Mathematically, the w=(r X v)/r^2 = (v)(sin(angle))/r^2 where r=radius, v=linear velocity and w=angular velocity. Pick any arbitrary point in space and extend r outward pointing at a planet, then a star system, then a far away galaxy and then a galaxy cluster and so on.

If pointing at a planet (r), within your life time w>0.

If pointing at another star system (extending r further), within your life time w~0. Angular velocity will stay virtually 0.

If pointing at far away galaxy (extending r even further), within your life time w~=0. Angular velocity will be much closer to absolute 0.

An absolute rest/static frame of reference comes into play where r->INFINITY. If r=INFINITY, w=0.

This has immense implications on relativity of motion of objects. If the Universe has a diameter of d=INFINITY where from any arbitrary point in the Universe to the edge of the Universe is still INFINITY then anything "in" that system has a static frame of reference the ENTIRE WHOLE INFINITE SYSTEM. Essentially, relativity must always reference this rest/static frame of reference since everything we know is "inside" it including the actual space we live in which obliterates Einstein's relativity or augments it extensively.
 

Coulomb (C) = Kilogram (Kg)

A reply to an argument about why I've concluded that coloumb and kilograms (charge and mass) are the same thing in my work:

"In regards to metric Coulomb and Kilogram unit being interchangeable in this framework, you have to fully understand that if the same thing, same object, and its mass are perceived differently at large differences in velocity, such as between low velocities and those near, at and beyond the speed of light, than Coulomb and Newton themselves did not have insight into the possibility that they were defining the same thing by two different units by defining characteristics of mass and charge and that is why we inherently developed two separate units for the same physical quality experienced differently due only to a difference in velocity. This has baffled me why people have a hard time understanding this. Its because current dogma is so ingrained."

And because I'm feeling a bit sentimental I want to leave you with the following video by one of my favourite bands:

http://www.gpofr.com/documents/sims/Star2Atom/publish.htm

In response to other types of atomic orbits, my answer is to change the flat orbits of the star system and make them a bit more inclined and give them more eliptical orbits. A future simulation will show what I mean. 

Come and join us at a conference on the cutting edge of science outside the mainstream!

Scientific Conference Offers Public Day with Experiments, Displays, Speakers Challenging Mainstream Ideas A day of scientific inquiry and challenges to such theories as Einstein's theory of relativity, the Bernoulli Effect, and plate tectonics are offered for public scrutiny for the first time by the Natural Philosophy Alliance, a worldwide scientific organization.

4 Day Conference: June 23rd to the 26th
Free Public Day: Saturday, June 26th
Location: Pyramid Pointe Conference Hall, Cal State University, Long Beach, California  

Click here for more information http://conf17.worldnpa.org/
Please forward to anyone who might be interested in attending.

The 17th Annual Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA) announces its first Free Public Science Day on Saturday June 26, 2010 at the UC Long Beach Pyramid Pointe Conference Center from 9 am to 6 pm during its 4-day conference starting June 23 at Cal State Long Beach. Independent scientists from around the world will be on hand for a day of experiments, demonstrations, thought provoking lectures, and comradery. Experiments and demonstrations include the growing earth, a refutation of special relativity, a refutation of the Bernoulli Effect, and how GPS in fact does not use relativity to name a few. The public day is part of a 4-day scientific conference which challenges mainstream ideas on such topics as relativity, cosmology, and physics.

Kicking off the day, GPS expert Ron Hatch will explain that, contrary to popular opinion, GPS systems are designed using Newtonian rather than Einsteinian mechanics, and that these systems challenge Einstein’s famous equivalence principle. Next world famous comic book artist Neil Adams will display stunning animations that capture a decades-old theory of an growing earth, defying the commonly accepted plate tectonic theories. In the early afternoon Dr. Michael McKubre will answer the question “How Hot is Cold Fusion?” as he did when he appeared on 60 Minutes in April 2009. Rounding out the quartet of featured speakers, science hobbyist Bill Beaty will explain the difference between technical putzing and true experimental science, and why the latter is so valuable. True to form, Beaty will also demonstrate live his high-speed magnetic levitator and microwave ball lightning, viewed by millions on youtube.

Throughout the day, visitors will have a chance to see Marko Rodin demonstrate his fascinating Rodin coil, pass their hand through a flame of Brown’s gas right after it melts a quarter, and witness simple experiments that challenge our understanding of Bernoulli’s principle. Decide for yourself with live demonstrations and models if unipolar induction confounds Einstein’s theories, if a vertical Michelson-Morley experiment gives a non-null result, if experiments can produce gravitational anomalies, and if it’s possible to physically model the atom.

The NPA’s full scientific conference takes place at UC Long Beach from Wednesday, June 23 through Saturday, June 26. Independent scientists from around the world have submitted over 100 technical papers, to be collected in a conference proceedings book, available to the public for $25. From 8:30 to 6:00, Wednesday through Friday, many of these scientists will present the ideas from their papers to an attentive audience of peers. Interested students may also register for the conference and hang out to discuss physics with the many presenters in the campus dorms. On Friday evening, the NPA will host a banquet where they will honor three seasoned scientists with the second annual Sagnac Award, the Noble Prize of independent physics. This year’s recipients are Dr. Thomas E. Phipps Jr. of Urbana, Illinois for his prolific writings on Hertzian Dynamics, applying the total time derivative to electrodynamics; Dr. Milo M. Wolff of Manhattan Beach California, for his theories on the wave structure of matter; and Dr. Evert Jan Post of Westchester, California, for his dedication to a statistical, non-Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Appropriately Dr. Post authored the definite 1967 paper on the Sagnac Effect, which has challenged Einsteinian paradigms since it was first discovered experimentally in 1913, just one year before Post was born.

For more information, call 562-508-4504, email contact@worldnpa.org, or visit the website http://conf17.worldnpa.org. Poster for the event at http://poster.conf17.worldnpa.org

About The Natural Philosophy Alliance

Founded in 1994 by the late John C. Chappell, the Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA) is a forum for independent scientific ideas organized to hold scientific conferences. The NPA has met annually in various cities across the United States to share, discuss and debate scientific ideas ranging from relativity and aether theories to Tesla concepts in energy, from quantum mechanics to expanding earth, from gravity to cosmology and the Big Bang, from cold fusion to structural models of the atom. Over the years, the NPA community has fostered an ethic of tolerance, giving all serious researchers a hearing. As a result, though not all NPAers agree on what’s right in science, they claim a surprising unity about what’s wrong. Visit their website at http://www.worldnpa.org.

About The World Science Database

Founded in 2008, the World Science Database (WSD) (http://www.worldsci.org) profiles scientists working outside the mainstream. The WSD provides links to thousands of abstracts and scientific papers from over 100 independent scientific journals and hundreds of independent scientific conferences, since 1990. The WSD is the largest collection of non-mainstream scientific papers ever assembled with over 1700 scientists from over 60 countries.

The first recorded written notion of this statement is in the ancient work of the Emerald Tablet whose author is claimed to be Hermes Trismegistus or specifically the ancient Greek god Hermes himself mixed with the ancient Egyptian god Thoth; possibly one in the same with one being older than the other. That alone should raise some eyebrows and if you missed it, an ancient "god" defined this notion for man to consume. Specifically what is written is this, "That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above, corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracles of the One Thing." It is a statement heavily immersed in meaning. According to Hermes, in the meaning of this statement held the secret to everything which I don't disagree.

Hermes was the ancient god of writing and magic which is an interesting combination as one seemingly has little to do with the other, at least at first glance, but that's beyond the scope of this blog which I hope to keep fairly short and concise. What I'd like point out is the magical reference of this abilities. I am a firm believer that true magic is nothing more than science, that which we already know and, more importantly, that which we don't. To a layman, almost all of our modern technology (derived from science) is magical but that's because he doesn't understand it. Therefore Hermes being the god of magic can also be interpreted as being the god of science which puts a very interesting twist on things.

On my website's author page, I list my interests in science (of course) and prehistory. Seemingly the two topics appear unrelated, but truth be told to me they are not. I am of a small percentage of people who believe that ancient myths or mythologies are recants of much older histories that were blurred throughout the progression of history by the human grapevine and especially by catastrophe. Specifically what I'm referring to are that some old myths, especially those held in high esteem due to their uncanny wisdom and knowledge refer to individuals that were essentially real in ancient prehistoric times. That being said, I'm not saying that Hermes was a real individual or, if he was real, that his name was actually Hermes. Hermes is possibly the mythological personification of an ancient individual who embodied the characteristics of Hermes, specially the "god" of magic or my interpretation of the "god" of science. I am also implying that, due to many ancient world mythologies, that real ancient prehistory, from which our many mysterious ancient mythologies were derived from, were possibly more advanced scientifically and technologically than we could possibly imagine. Heresy! But I am definitely not alone on this idea. Also, the title of "god" can also be interpreted as the mythological personification of person or title of the highest regard in their field like the chief director of science. It's all a bit of stretch but logical if you consider the uneducated layman's perspective. To this layman, a popular authority on science, like a legendary scientist such as Einstein or Newton, are individuals who exist(ed) on a level incomprehensible to them. Essentially they are god-like figures in their field which is science. With that in mind, in thousands of years from now, who's to say how Einstein or Newton will be remembered. If a natural catastrophe all but wipes out the human race and it's documented history, how will the survivors over the generations recant and remember Einstein or Newton and their contribution especially if they don't remember the specifics like their equations. Einstein and Newton would become the characters in stories from which mythology is created.

"As Above, So Below" is fundamentally a relative statement in the truest meaning of relativity, not the traditional physics definition. Relativity derives from the word "relative" which further derives from the word "relate". Relativity is a comparison to between two or more things that are relative on certain characteristics or properties. Essentially they relate to one another. So why am I so fascinated with this statement and its meaning? This statement refers to a hidden secret of everything which has been further derived by scholars to be a relative reference between the microcosm and macrocosm. It should be evident to you at this point, if you are familiar with my work, why I'm so fascinated with this statement. My work and theories are about a relative scale relationship, through velocity, between atoms (microcosm) and star systems (macrocosm) along with the fractal nature of the Universe. I truly think, because of my own work and the remarkably exact figures I've been able to derive (elementary chgarge 1.6022x10^-19 and Avogadro's constant 6.022x10^-23), that Hermes, whoever he truly was, actually did know the secrets of the Universe. This begs the question, how come we lost this knowledge? It is my belief that my discovery is more of a rediscovery of ancient knowledge that we lost for some reason like many mythological references to a horrible global ancient flood.

My own history with regards to "As Above, So Below" is also very old. I am Christian, specifically a Roman Catholic Christian, but don't let preconceived notions of Catholics or Christian mislead you on who I am as a person. I am also a pantheist because of my work but more importantly I am very open minded. The notion of "As Above, So Below" was introduced to me many, many years ago by a mentor of mine in the Catholic religion who has long passed away. At the time I was contemplating on becoming a Priest, but I didn't for personal reasons. During my studies, I was introduced to the many levels of Heaven and afterlife by this mentor of mine and one theme that was discussed was "As Above, So Below". I found the whole thing fascinating. Of course the material was introduced under religious connotations but it actually helped me see relations in science to this material, for example Bohr's analogy between atoms and star systems.

With all that being said, I'd like to show you how remarkable Jesus was. No I'm not preaching or trying to convert anyone. What I want to show you is how immersed his teachings were in relation to relativity and the notion of "As Above, So Below". If anything, this should show you that he was a very enlightened individual (if you had any doubts). Christ is recorded saying many things, but without doubt the one thing he is best known for speaking was the Our Father prayer. It is the most treasured prayer in the Catholic and Christian faith but very few realize it's true hidden treasures. In regards to science, the Our Father refers to the notions of relativity and "As Above, So Below" implicitly. The relative statement is, "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive others." Here we are asking God, an incomprehensible entity of unlimited power in relation to our own finite self and abilities, to forgive us as we would forgive a relative equal to us. If you think about it, it's a very powerful statement, not for the action which has a more religious meaning, but the relative reference. The reference to "As Above, So Below" is in this phrase, "on earth as it is in heaven," which can also be interpreted as "in earth as it is in heaven." It's actually very remarkable because this is referring to a relative equal relationship between the microcosm (us) and macrocosm (heavens meaning sky or space) in the most treasured Christian prayer spoken by Christ himself. Some will ignorantly blurt out that he wasn't talking about science or any scientific notion when he spoke the Our Father. True, the context was "religious" in nature, but if he is truly the Son of God then who's to deny his awareness of the secrets of Universe including those of science and could easily mix those secrets in his teachings. Religious scholars would probably agree with me on this that the knowledge and abilities of Christ are themselves unknown as the human embodiment of God's son. Aethists would naturally call it all crazy and agnostic theists would challenge it (which I'd expect nothing less). The point is, Jesus, the flesh and blood man who lived 2 thousand years ago, was intellectually enlightened to construct a prayer that embodied implicitly notions that are now immersed in the construction of modern and future science and for that alone it is remarkable.     
 

You can download it from the Document Library

Once again, this work maps all celestial objects directly to their quantum counterparts mathematically. It's pretty interesting, especially the numbers and this has never been done before. There are only 16 pages, but if you are pressed for time take a look at the end of the document at the data.

The goal is to provoke critical thinking and cast doubt in the minds of skeptics that star and atomic systems are completely different and that Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is at all correct.

Abstract:

This work introduces an alternative theoretical framework to Einstein’s SRT. It is a velocity dependent relativity theory similar in respect to SRT with regards to length contraction, but significantly different in all other aspects. It includes size scaling dependent on velocity and a Universal static frame of reference. It details that star and atomic systems are the same thing at two different points on the velocity spectrum, where star systems exist at low velocities and atomic systems exist at high velocities near and at the speed of light, and that our Solar System is a celestial Beryllium atom. The mathematical observations detailed in this work are beyond doubt extremely interesting. It mathematically derives the elementary charge 1.6022x10^(-19) C and also derives Avogadro’s constant 6.022x10^(-23). The observations show that mass and charge are the same thing at two different points on the velocity spectrum, that gas-giant planets in the outer system have a direct scale relationship to electrons, that rock planets in the inner system are directly related to neutrons, that the star itself is related to protons and that asteroids are related to photons. This radical, simple and highly intuitive work maps celestial objects to their quantum counter-parts mathematically with extraordinary accuracy.

To read this download:

http://www.gpofr.com/documents/2012Atlantis.pdf

The Vancouver Winter Olympics was extremely inspiring with Canada winning 14 gold medals, the most gold metals ever won by any nation in the history of the Winter Olympics. It brought out a national pride that is always there but quiet even before we won a single medal. We are not obnoxious with our pride because we are truly a humble people. We are simple people who love our beer and good times. The Olympics gave us the chance to come together and celebrate in our national pride and it was wonderful just as Canada is wonderful.

Of course our national sport is hockey and the final Olympic hockey game was amazing. The American team did what many thought was impossible for a young team and they desire to be commended and very proud of themselves. The Canadian team did what was historic, especially Sidney Crosby, giving Canada its 14th gold medal. For those of you who don't understand what's so special about hockey, play it to find out. It's like soccer on ice with sticks and a tiny black "ball" that really hurts if it hits you. Back in my day I use to play ice hockey and I know how grueling a sport it is, so to see our players battle on for hours was inspiring.

The following is a video of one of our nation's best artists singing a song by another of our nation's historic artists (showcased at the Olympics):

If you are pressed for time, take a look at the numbers on pages/slides 72, 80 to 82, 106 to 111. Page 97 is a summary of the framework used to calculate these numbers.

The goal is to provoke critical thinking and cast doubt in the minds of skeptics that star and atomic systems are completely separate/different and that Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is at all correct.

Please share it with friends, colleagues and teachers.

I have to also mention Haiti in this small post and urge everyone to help the unfortunate in Haiti affected by the earthquakes by donating.

Although the year started off on a sad note for many, I truly believe 2010 will be a good year.

I have several posts in the works, but unfortunately I don't have any thing ready to post right now expect for the following updates:

• In the following month, this website will be rebuilt in order to utilize and beta test some new techology built by yours truly
• The website is also moving servers
• I've finished my latest research paper and there are several very interesting things in it such as mathematically mapping celestial objects to quantum particles

There are more updates to mention, but I'd rather save them for later posts.

As we were growing up and learning all the wonderful things that we’ve learned, there are moments in our lives that defined us, that changed us. In my own life, I can count several very influential moments. Some good and some bad, but they were all defining moments. One of these moments, one of the first and the reason why I’m writing this today, happened when I was very young. I was visiting my grandfather one summer after many years of him living with me. I was young enough to not have met some of my distant family (geographically). One of these individuals was my uncle, my grandfather’s brother. I hadn’t heard too many things about my uncle which lead me to believe he was like my grandfather who was a happy, intelligent and reasonable individual. On the second day I was in town, my grandfather introduced me to his brother at the local town lodge. He was sitting watching others play cards. He left us alone and we chatted for a bit. He wasn’t what I expected. He had a tough exterior and a personality to match, but we got along for that brief moment. After awhile he said bye to me and the others, left and went home. I was the last family member to have seen him alive on the day I first met him. He went home that night and killed himself. He hung himself in his living room. A day later, the son of a local family friend, who was about my age, called me to my uncle’s house where I saw a haunting scene. It was completely surreal. Apparently his neighbor, who would occasionally go over to help him with household chores (he was an older man), was the one to first find him. I along with several other people, who I don’t remember now, told my grandfather. He was shocked and immediately ran over to his brother’s house. I was told to stay away from the house until the authorities and my grandfather finished up, but mainly because I was young. I remember my grandfather being more disappointed than sad. In fact he was a bit angry at his brother’s action. For me, I was disturbed. I knew I was last family member to talk to him on the day I first met him. That week, I was asked by my family to help carry my uncle’s coffin. This was the first time I ever carried a dead person at a funeral and unfortunately it hasn’t been the last. I was told it was an honour, but the whole thing disturbed me and it still does. What disturbed me, seeing it from a young kids perspective with a lot of life ahead of him, was why? Why would anyone kill themselves? How bad can life be that you would take your own life and any chance of making it better? Over the years since it happened, the reason why has continued to haunt me. My grandfather told me, which I didn’t know then, was that my aunt, my uncle’s wife, passed away the year before leaving him completely alone because they had no children. It was suspected then that his encounter with me, his brother’s grandson, pushed him over the edge which didn’t make me feel any better. For a kid, it sounded like it was my fault in away, though I know it wasn’t. During my stay at my grandfather’s, I overheard the adults speak of new words that I didn’t fully understand like depression and purpose. It made me think, which admittedly was something I wasn’t very good at when I was a kid. For a long time I felt somehow responsible for pushing him over the edge just because I existed. What I didn’t know then, was that this incident was start of my own questioning of life, existence and purpose. In away, this incident has been a very fundamental motive to research physics, philosophy, to write my book, my papers and this blog, because I wanted to find reason for existing. I didn’t want anyone else to feel that way which is why I know now that no matter how small our contribution to this existence is, it has profound implications. My uncle’s suicide was sad and tragic. Some might say it was meaningless, but I don’t think it was. It affected me, and others, profoundly. It shaped me into the person I am today, and that’s what I’ve learned. The mere fact we exist affects the world and for that alone we have purpose. 
 

Infinite Probabilities
I’ve written about this before, including in my paper, but decided to keep the description and examples conservative. Today, I’m going well beyond the conservative (subjective conservatism) into the unadulterated actuality of this idea and present it in its grandiose embodiment.

The idea is simple, if the Universe is infinite, then there is in our scale of reality infinite star systems of infinitely various compositions everywhere. There are infinitely more star systems then there are atoms in our entire Solar System. Think about that for a second and how mind boggling it truly is. What does it mean? It means that there are infinite star systems in the Universe that match our Solar System exactly on the position, properties and characteristics of every atom. This also means that there are an infinite number of Earths in the Universe matching our Earth in every way including the existence of living count-parts that are essentially you and me in every way. These Earths don’t exist in some alternate dimension (imaginary sci-fi reality), they exist in the same space and time our planet exists in except in a different sector of the Universe. But don’t stop at infinite twin star-systems and Earths. There are also infinitely matching galaxies and clusters of galaxies. It’s truly staggering. Think of this: as you look out the windows at the night sky, there are infinite twin counter-parts of you also looking into the night sky through a window that matches yours exactly and seeing the exact same sky and stars you’re seeing, but neither these other yous, windows and night skys are really the same or located in the same sectors in the Universe. They’re separated by incomprehensible distances. Some may argue, including myself that these other yous collectively are actually you and that their existence makes up your true existence in the Universe. There are many questions still to answer well beyond simple relativity and the unification of physics.

Now for every exactly matching world that exists out there, there are worlds that are ‘almost’ the same, but not exactly. There are Earth’s out there where you don’t exist, where the Nazi’s won the war (to that world’s chagrin), or where you live an entirely different life even though you are fundamentally the same (same parents and upbringing). Essentially, for every decision you’ve made in life, there are an infinite number of Earths where you’re counter-part exists where they made a different decision affecting their lives and diverging your life’s course from theirs. In one world, you married your high-school sweet-heart, yet in another you never married, yet in another maybe you’re gay possibly due to a small variance in your genetic code, your upbringing or a personal decision (whatever the reason there are an infinite number of parameters). Think it and there is an actual, physical world out there, existing at the same time as ours and that it exists for real. In one world, you’re rich, in another you’re poor, in another you’re middle-class and in another you have the same job. To an extreme, there are an infinite number of worlds out there where you are president of the planet, where in one you are loved, in another you are hated and yet in another you are a martyr.

Sounds farfetched huh? You see in a mathematical probability equation, the application of infinity results in infinite probabilities. The word infinity does a poor job of describing how big infinity really is. I challenge any fellow mathematician to dispute this conclusively. It can’t be disputed and those who are enlightened to this realization understand what it means and that it’s absolutely staggering.

You can consider these twin Earths as parallel as described by some. Parallel worlds is a familiar concept especially described to sci-fi lovers. The TV series Sliders revolved completely around idea of infinite parallel worlds and traveling to them. What few realize is that Sliders, the characters and actual and premise of show’s story in an infinite Universe has an infinite probability of actually existing for real somewhere. Quin, the main character in the show probably exists for real doing exactly what his character was doing in the TV show, travelling between parallel worlds in the infinite Universe. This sounds crazy, but mathematically it’s not. There are worlds out there where you and your life are the imaginary creations of a TV producer possibly watched by millions. On that world, you are only an imaginary character while the characters from Friends TV series are actually real. Keeps getting crazier huh? 

Now thus far I’ve only limited this idea to our reality scale level, but this scenarios becomes even more mind boggling when you consider my theory of quantum-celestial equivalence/relativity amplifying the infinite probability calculation which is still infinite but takes on different time-frames of existence.

Now remember this craziness is based on mathematical probabilities and not some fantastic illusion. You see, the mathematical probabilities are derived and calculated based on many parameters that limit the probabilistic outcome. The problem is when we add a variable into the mix that is essentially infinite as the possible size of the Universe could be. Essentially any probability multiplied by an infinite quantity results in, you guess it, infinity. If the the likelihood of something actually existing on our world is almost 0 like P=0.00000000000000000000000000001, then by changing the scope of the probability from this planet to that of the entire Universe, that probability equation takes on an infinite quantity which if the initial probability was P1 = 0.00000000000000000000000000001, then by applying the infinite parameter we get P=P1*INF=INF. What this means is that we have infinite probable favourable outcomes that match the combination of possible outcomes. It's a bit bewildering, but essentially if you can think it, somewhere in the Universe it really exists. Of course there is a natural order to the Universe that everything must adhere to, so as long as this natural order, such as rudimentary physics, is not violated in the given probabilistic scenario, then again anything is possible including the likelihood that George Lucas' Star Wars universe and all it's amazing characters actually existing somewhere out there at an incomprehensible distance away from us.

If any of this holds water in actuality as it does on paper, then it leads to a paradox. That paradox, as mentioned before, is the likelihood that some fiction writer somewhere in the Universe is writing fictional works on his planet based, without his apparent knowledge, on the reality of our lives on this planet with uncanny precision and detail. The probability says that such a scenario is possible in the infinite Universe. In fact the probability states that infinite fictional writers in the Universe with no knowledge of our own existence are writing about us and our lives in correct and exact detail. The paradox, which I'll call Sullivan's Paradox, asks if the writer writing such exact detail, with no conscious awareness of us here on Earth, is based on complete coincidence (an infinite number of times), or is he absorbing "somehow" information about our lives or is he actually guiding the outcome of our lives through his writings over the incomprehensible distance between our planets? Makes you wonder. Are all our own creative fictional stories essentially prophetic to the people on other planets somewhere in the infinite Universe?

Like I said before, there is much, much more to physics and existence that we just don't know and we are very far from scratching the surface.

Once again, I'm comparing the data on solar/star systems to known atomic data like electron charge by using S and related equations. It's not Bohr's model which didn't have S to work with. Bohr said there was a similarity but had no exact relationship of any kind. Both systems have 'quantifiable' objects circulating and inner core. They are the only two systems in nature with this similar make up. Unless electrons travel through the core/nucleus, they orbit the nucleus at various orbits/inclines - Pauli Exclusion Principle.

In clarification to gravity, my theory of equal mass-density objects repelling each other is directly due to wave theory. Free floating sources of equivalent vibration will repel each other while significant differences in frequency will attract. All objects of matter produce quantized gravitation waves thus they vibrate the surrounding space-time making wave theory dynamics inseparable from any gravity theory. Again take a look at my ebook and paper where I elaborate on this idea much more.

Also I used absolutely no false values as someone mentioned. It's interesting how vicariously certain words are thrown around without checking the math first. Anyone can look these values up and do the simple math themselves. S is the scale value between Beryllium of 105pm (measured) or 112pm (calculated) and the average distance from the Kuiper belt to the outer edge of the scattered disc (objects still orbiting the system forming its outer edge) which is from 55AU to 100AU = 77.5AU. Using any of these values in whichever scale equation combination you decide will closely match my derived value of S and remarkably also S=c^e. This is something few realize until they do the math. All my subsequent equations are based on S and that's how I discovered the direct equivalent Jupiter/gas-giant mass to electron charge relation.

With regards to Beryllium, it has various isotopes and the question is which one matches our Solar System. There are 4 electrons/gas giants, 4-5 neutrons/ inner system rock planets (is the moon or Ceres considered the 5th?) and 4 protons making up the Sun. The Sun is the most difficult to decipher but I made some interesting observations. Remember velocity plays a large part in kinetic energy of planetoids including the Sun. Their equivalent charge, through my transform relativity equations for mass and size, gives them different charges based on their v and for electrons/gas giants their all the same charge. I'm working on a lot mainly alone and not for lack of trying to collaborate. I do share my work with the world freely.

The whole idea and approach is actually fairly simple. I think this is very significant and if others don't that's unfortunately their loss. There is an genuine opportunity here to truly discover an amazing aspect of our Universe.

Many spend their time playing word puzzles, Sudoku, cards, mobile electronic games. On the bus countless are at this very moment somewhere in the world, working through their current challenging game. Many of these games are mentally exercising and can be generally accepted as a good time killer. A good argument can be made for the benefits of playing games like Sudoku but I’d rather focus on the argument that it’s a complete waste of time. Why? Because I was asked once why I spend some of my free time working on physics problems instead of doing what the others do. I say why not. Some do Sudoku on the bus, I do physics. The argument is that Sudoku ultimately has no existential benefit. There is no meaning added to your life derived from Sudoku, and the only benefit that it derives can be easily gained by learning the sciences or and simply doing physics problems. Essentially this is a reply to that question.

Through my life I've been a raging workaholic and highly critical of the work ethics of others, to my own personal detriment, and have considered certain activities a complete waste of time. That’s not my current view. Age has a way of curbing certain philosophies and making you wiser. Everything ultimately matters and a balanced lifestyle is very important, though I could argue that being balanced is also boring and that it isn’t the modern day norm or has never been. Attempting to achieve balance though is ultimately good for you mentally, physically and “metaphysically”. Essentially it’s the act of achieving chi and internal peace. It’s like cleaning your room and being able to breath (and think) after because the clutter is gone. Unfortunately for many of us, this is a difficult pursuit. I for one (I’d rather mention myself than offend anyone else) am a complicated individual which I’ll admit openly. To curb complication, I try to keep things simple (KISS) by following certain personal rules like absolute loyalty to my employers and clients by working for and keeping their best interest in mind, even at my own detriment. The logic follows that as they do well, I do well. I also rather not play time killing games like Sudoku (opting for a good book or physics problems), video games with others is a definite exception, and I don’t gamble unless the odds are in my favour (more certainty than uncertainty especially depending how much is being waged). There are numerous arguments for how illogical some of these rules might be, but the biggest argument for is to maintain order in a world dependent on social acceptance. We all have our rules even if they’re not well defined. We also have the rules others impose on us. Following rules makes life work otherwise it’d be chaos (love that theory and ultimately through chaos derives order), but the complication for me, and for many others, is that I question life profusely and it doesn’t help when “life” at times, or permanently, throws you a curve ball. What do you do when there isn’t a rule to fit a certain scenario because the scenario is extremely rare?  I’d like to think I smart enough to figure things out in those cases, but I’ll admit it’s extremely difficult. This leads into my next argument.

There is an unfounded and completely absurd notion in science and physics that it has to be complicated even by scientists. One argument against my own physics theory is that it’s too simple. Again, as in an older blog, why should it be complicated? What rule states that anything should be complicated? If anything is defined in a complex way it’s because it’s yet to be defined in a simple way usually do a lack of knowledge. Software developer’s ultimate pursuit, especially in the hay-day of software development, was to write extremely efficient and simple code and if they didn’t it’s because that lacked certain information either to make it simpler or to derive a framework that would make the derivative software simple and efficient. My point in proof are 3D software engines such as 3D game engines (which I love). Software development and physics “development” aren’t the same or are they. In both cases software engineers and physicists attempt to develop “something” and how they go about it can be very similar. Science researchers can learn a thing or two from software developers. Physics theories are themselves iterative just like versioning in software. For example, Einstein modified Newton’s theories. So if there is obvious similarities in development practices between the two paradigms then why not apply more software development practices to physics in order to make the current established theories better and simpler? The problem with that is in software development, at times, the entire software program must be completely rebuilt from scratch to remove clutter and inefficiencies. These moments of redevelopment usually arise with something fundamental in the business or software platform has changed forcing a complete rewrite. In science, it is claimed that such a scenario is extremely rare but has happened. The problem is that currently many are opposed to redeveloping anything in science from such a fundamental basis. Many but not all. Why redevelop anything? To make it simpler. To remove complexity. To keep it simple stupid. Some, not all, may argue that I didn’t discover something, though I’ll argue quite extensively that I am onto something, and that my very initial attempt to formulate everything physical anew based on this discovery is too simple. Well from a programmer’s perspective that’s a compliment.

I conjecture that a "transform" equation is necessary and related to velocity in regards to inertial frames of reference but the difference lies in the relativity between objects and the Universe as a whole. The Universe is essentially static (of course not fully) compared to the velocities of objects within it. This Universal characteristic makes recordable positioning of celestial objects, the determination of their velocities all possible (obvious truth). With this concept of a Universal "static" frame of reference, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity takes on an unprecedented quality. That relativity is actually always referenced by the Universal static frame of reference apart from solely referencing "relatively" other objects within the same/similar scale range. This means that the relativity between two objects traveling at the same velocity between the two are possibly traveling at different velocities with regards to the Universal static frame of reference and that all objects reference this static frame of reference in physical actuality. This translates to different velocity (inertial) frames of reference where physics must be experienced normally at anyone one of those velocities. The problem lies that at higher velocities in reference to the external Universe surrounding the traveling observer, space density (energy space density) increases where essentially the traveling observer exists in more space than another observer at slower velocities. This means that the observer's matter density to space density ratio must remain constant to experience physics normally and in order for this to be true, the traveling observer's physical construct (size) must "shrink".

So in regards to a physical explanation for a physical transform equation, as the observer reaches the velocity of light (c) their size will be scaled by a factor of S (reality scale constant) and their passage of time will increase compared a "stationary" observer by a factor of 3x10^8 or greater (velocity frame of reference dictate that time starts at the velocity being traveled at for the traveling observer). Essentially, they will become a quantum equivalent of their celestial self.

This is my theory I've been promoting for sometime. I do want to make people think outside the box.

This entire theory is detailed in my at my paper and contains some very interesting mathematical observations:

http://www.gpofr.com/documents/realitivistic%20relativity.pdf

Share it with colleagues and think about it objectively.

I find human nature very interesting and perhaps the strangest behavior by us humans is the act of assuming things especially when verification to those assumptions are a mere question posed at it's source. Inevitably all assumptions ultimately lead to rumors and I can openly say that I've in more than one occasion been a passive protagonist, as opposed to the more pervasive non-passive protagonist, in the longevity of certain assumptions especially if they pertain to me. Why? Because I find it fascinating that certain rumors persist at all even when verifiable evidence is so easily accessible by simply asking. I don't do this with any malicious intent, in fact what I do is very little at all hence the passive correlation. I just let it continue unhindered because I don't care for the most part and because rumors arise from assumptions but they are not the same. Rumors are perpetrated usually with malicious intent fueled by assumptions and ignited by ignorance but all rumors have one frailty. The truth. Specifically, and as an example, my motives around certain personal situations along with my motives of why I work and pursue physics against the status-quo (in part not totally) have come under scrutiny by many individuals within the guile of assumptions. Perhaps what I find even more interesting is the relating assumption that perhaps I'm deaf and unable to hear. Now what I'm detailing here is not something I've experienced solely, but something we've all experienced. To some it affects them greatly, and to others like myself, they couldn't care less. I admire straight forwardness. Being bold and speaking your mind is refreshing. I tend to surround myself with individuals that rarely make assumptions and are bold to the point of being rude. For example, to some it's socially unacceptable to ask how much someone earns or how much their mortgage is. I find that utterly ridiculous. If you don't ask, you wont know. The reasons for asking can be many, from good intentions to ill intent, and it's up to the person being asked to share that information or not. It's their decision. Now here's the kicker, assumptions can only persist so long until they become rumors persisted by non-passive protagonists with an agenda usually of ill intent and further fueled by their ignorance and insecurities. Human's tend to be very competitive, especially men. To men, it's usually if not always a dick measuring contest (pardon my own boldness). Of course this is usually at a small insignificant level, but the real problems arise when the same contest is played at the higher levels. These competitive contests, the ones shrouded in ignorance and insecurities, can become very political and ultimately life threatening possibly affecting many people's lives directly or indirectly. This all again leads to question why are rumors persisted? As mentioned before, insecurities and ignorance but that's superficial. The root question is,"Insecurities from what and ignorance of what?" Survival of livelihood, reputation, the "normal" due to a lack of knowledge in something which is itself not fully understood. The root cause is fear.

http://www.gpofr.com/documents/the general principles of reality a bibliography.pdf

I don't disagree with you that my work will be shunned by the scientific community, though perhaps not by all. I'd also say that there are many other reasons not just the herd factor though perhaps that may be the root of all other reasons. The biggest reason is that it contradicts established theory though I'll argue not by much and only in modification to part of Einstein's work. I have followed the peer-review process and currently my work is under review and has been for quite sometime (a little frustrating but hopeful). My intent to share it freely is to gain support for it and start people thinking legitimately in another direction and on something more intuitive than we currently have. Essentially every work needs a champion, or champions, promoting it. Then again, someone in the right position, who reads my work through my own promotion or through others, might also decide to champion this radical theory. I honestly and absolutely have nothing against the scientific community, or any established community for that matter. My only grievance is that other highly theoretical theories are unjustly popularized (not well established theories) when they've had nothing to show for so many years. In the case of string theory that's about 40s of nothing to show. I'm critical of string theory, but not against it. I just want what string theory has and that's very intelligent people adjusting and working on it in order to fit all scenarios. I believe my theory from the start solves many problems string theory is facing currently. Perhaps all string theory needs is my theory to piece it all together.

In answer to your question, our planet is moving very fast through space, but in order to leave it our rockets need to travel faster. So if stresses were only dependent on velocity then the faster you travel the more stresses you'll encounter (via space particle and radiation density increasing), until, and this is part of my theory, you reduce in size enough to experience normalcy once again due to space-time density relation to velocity. And yes you already answered the other part to your question, the Earth does protect it's creations on its surface better than anything exposed to the harsh elements of space.

To answer your other question, according to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (his gravity theory) which is not the theory I'm challenging (The Special Theory of Relativity is the one I've modified), strong gravity fields do slow down the passage of time and that's why on Jupiter, time travels slower than around Earth's because it's gravity field is stronger. Where Einstein's General Theory is a gravity theory, his Special Theory is a motion theory and both are quite distinct. There is strong evidence for Einstein's general theory and my theory does not refute this in fact I believe it's fairly correct. The ambiguity lies in where motion of an object intermixes with a gravity field, perhaps at certain gravitational field nodes (wave theory), and the ultimate effect on the passage of time. I can argue that certain satellites around the Earth will have their clocks slow down but not to the full extent predicted by Einstein because my theory of relativity increases the passage of time due to the high velocity of the satellite's orbit, though I am more inclined to believe that increased exposure to prolonged radiation effects these space clocks adversely. 

Keep spreading the word on this radical theory and share my paper:

http://www.gpofr.com/documents/realitivistic%20relativity.pdf

----

I came across a mathematical relation that has made my head spin. I've tried to decipher it and I have an inclination what it means.

I was formulating a gravitational formula based my paper 'Realitivistic Relativity' around the section on forces and my ebook 'The General Principles of Reality A' for a new paper of mine. Actually, it's a reformulation with minor adjustments to account for some experimental data. Anyway, because of my Reality Scale Constant S and theory on the fractal Universe along with several of my mathematical coincidences (that aren't coincidences BTW) I was attempting to relate Coloumb's Constant to the Gravitational Constant under the guidelines of my theories. Through this I came across this value:

k_G = 1498.57

which remarkably fits into this relationship:

(k_G * c_0)^2 = 2(S)

or

S = [(k_G * c_0)^2]/2

What's remarkable about this relationship is that I wasn't using the value S in any of the calculations that derived k_G but yet k_G has a relation to S in the end.

I am inclined to believe after further research that this value is directly related to a density property in space that changes with it's velocity frame of reference just as time, mass and length do. It's very interesting and has made me loose some sleep thinking about it.

----

Also checkout my last two blog posts. I posted all three at once. Part 4 of Space Invasion is one of them for those of you who found my space adventure story interesing even though it's unorthodox for a blog.

http://www.gpofr.com/documents/realitivistic%20relativity.pdf

----

Also I recently wrote an article for UFO Digest after some initial interest in my theories by an email. They asked me to elaborate on my theories in the form of an article so I did. Due to this article I have been questioned as to why I agreed to posting anything on a UFO related site. My answer to that is my work isn't only for the scientific elite to absorb but for everyone (the article restates this). UFO Digest and it's community are part of that general public. This is why I try very hard to keep things simple to understand which in my opinion is more difficult than using scientific jargon uncommon to the general public. Now I am not in defense of all the content and subject matter on UFO Digest as I can flat out say I disagree with much of it, but I am in defense of why such a medium exists. I am not of the opinion that certain subject matter not be questioned or ignored especially by the scientific community and there are many scientists with the same opinion. I am of the very strong opinion that everything must be questioned, analyzed and reanalyzed continuously therefore any communication medium or organization in defense of such ideals is worthy of its existence. Two such organizations are:

- Society of Scientific Exploration (http://www.scientificexploration.org)
- Natural Philosophy Alliance (http://www.worldnpa.org)

The article is listed below:

----

I believe your organization, and community would find what I've discovered very interesting, which is why I'm sharing my work with you. My intent is to make you aware of some interesting findings, spark intrigue and gain support for a new radical theory. The linked paper is a hypothetical study into the relativistic symmetry between celestial and quantum objects strongly alluding to the Universe being fractal in nature. It gives some unexpected mathematical coincidences directly linking mass to charge which as you would suspect is of significant interest to all of science. There are two coincidences in fact which are further compounded by circular reference to my paper's hypothesis. These are coincidences which I strongly believe cannot be ignored.

Many professionals I've shared this with are blown away to put it mildly. They include many scientists and engineers. Many of these individuals call it the missing piece to the unification of physics and it comes from the misconception of Einstein's theories. These misconceptions pertain to relativistic time and mass along with the application of scale and that the speed of light is a limit. It currently states that time of the traveling observer slows down and that mass increases compared to the stationary observer. This is flat out incorrect.

There is absolutely no evidence that any particles accelerated to near the speed of light in particle accelerators have their mass increase at all or that time slows down for these particles from our frame of reference. The one experiment boasted by quantum physicists to prove time dilation on quantum particles is riddled with interference from the experimenting apparatus and erroneous misinterpretation in order to fit Einstein's theories as they are currently understood. I will elaborate on this experiment later on.

To understand how Einstein's equations can be interpreted differently, the misconception that the speed of light is limit must be addressed.

This is a hotly debated topic and one which I love to argue over giving different perspectives to consider. Based on my own theoretical research and some very interesting mathematical observations, the speed of light is not a speed limit but remains a constant only because the source of all light is constant. The source of all light are excited atoms. Even the concept of the atom is also a constant as is the concept of stars. Einstein assumed that light was the universal speed limit and he openly stated that this was an assumption. Only by falsification of this claim should it have been accepted by the scientific community but it wasn't. It was accepted as fact based on limited observational data. Accepting anything as fact is not scientific method. An obvious counter argument to the speed of light has always been staring everyone in the face. That argument is that space itself travels faster than light. What is considered the fabric of space (the substance of space-time) is everywhere instantly and this theoretical model was derived from Einstein's own work on relativity and the concept of inertial frames of reference.

Space itself is a point of reference at both points of transition, so it can be mathematically derived that space traveled between both points instantly at an infinite velocity. As hard as that is to conceptualize in physical actuality, my own point is that popularized theories and assumptions must be deconstructed from all conceivable and inconceivable angles and only by doing so will we ever advance our understanding of the Universe. For example, the concept of inertial frames of reference in Einstein's relativity makes several assumptions of which the greatest is that the Universe itself has no frame of reference for everything within it including multiple observers at varying velocities all in reference to the stars, galaxies and galaxy clusters which we all know exist where they are (granted with observable delay of the speed of light by our current observational instrumentation). This is a big assumption in current relativistic physics. That fact is that a universal frame of reference does exist only because it's that obvious; the Universe is all around us.

I call this frame of reference the universal static frame of reference. Essentially Einstein's equations are not wrong but how they were conceptually derived lead them to be interpreted incorrect. Time increases by the Einstein's equation which doesn't mean it slows down for the traveling observer, as seen by the stationary observer, but instead means that the passage of time increases by a factor given in the equation for the traveling observer as seen by the stationary observer. Now what baffles me is that with the advent of the concept of inertial frames of reference, or velocity frames of reference as I prefer to call them, that not all angles and possibilities were analyzed from the many possible reference points and frames (of perception). I will not point fingers at Einstein because he solely introduced several very important concepts, of which relativity is one, into a mathematical framework with his theories of Special and General Relativity. His contribution to science is staggering even if all he did was just have critical thinkers actually think outside the box of conservatism.

Now I will point my finger at the great many scientists that came after Einstein.

Why didn't someone, using Einstein's own concepts, not apply this new framework of understanding to a universal frame of reference that is itself static from our point of reference? This lack of foresight and misinterpretation in Einstein's work is so incorrect that it has stifled the progress of science for over a hundred years and it continues to stifle and makes it impossible to unite relativistic and quantum physics ever without inventing silly imaginary mathematical contraptions like String Theory. I find it hard to believe that with so many amazing minds not even one of them thought that perhaps things were being read backwards. My work and paper takes Einstein's theories and expands on it and what I've found is overwhelming. I have found the mathematical unification of physics. That is a big claim that urge you take with a grain of salt. Why? Because you have to objectively analyze it for yourself and contemplate on the details and subsequent ramifications of my paper 'Realitivistic Relativity' and my many related theories in my eBook 'The General Principles of Reality A' (or GPRA). To do otherwise is not science.

Is there proof for these claims?

Yes there is.

There is evidence that astronauts traveling and living in space at high velocities have actually aged faster than people on Earth. There is also evidence that clocks on board spacecrafts have actually diverged from Earth clocks by increasing in time passed. The clocks are dismissed as malfunctioning due to the stresses of space travel, but honestly there is no good explanation and to me this is empirical evidence my theory is correct. The working explanation for the aging as concluded by our space agencies is that increased space radiation ages human tissue faster by damaging it faster than it would be damaged here on Earth. The act of aging is attributed to damages to our DNA and scarring of our flesh over our lifetime. The more one damages his or her body, such as through severe drug addiction and alcoholism, then the faster they age and the more they physically appear older. Induced willingly or allowing it naturally is still aging. You see the big misconception of aging is that aging is the passage of time. Aging is not the passage of time, but they are related. Damages to your body compound over a certain time span and that is what aging actually is.

If you have two individuals, one protected in an underground bunker with thick concrete walls living a healthy lifestyle and another person Sun bathing everyday while drinking alcohol for 3 years, the individual in the bunker would have aged slower physically in relation to the other person absorbing Sun radiation and toxic beverages. Aging is itself also very relative. Now here's my point, if you take two identical individuals, healthy individuals, and put one traveling around the Earth in a heavily shielded spacecraft traveling at enormous velocities while leaving the other individual on Earth, the individual in space will still age faster. The only thing that changed was their velocity frame of reference. In fact, the individual in space was intentionally protected from greater exposure to radiation but still aged faster. This is the evidence all space agencies know. Scientists know that many quantum particles cannot be shielded and travel through your body every moment of everyday even here on Earth and these particles overtime contribute to compounded damages in your body aging you physically. This is a natural and normal state of aging and common to all living creatures on this planet.

The problem is that this natural state of aging increases when you travel at higher velocities. Why? Because the density of this these quantum particles increase at higher velocities and pass through your body in a higher density effectively aging you faster only because your velocity increased. Now apply this reasoning, which is scientifically proven, to the theories of relativity (mine and Einstein's). Space is filled with quantum particles even if they are more diluted than in a piece of matter, but essentially these diluted quantum particles, traveling at enormous velocities, are interrelated with the density of space. It can be said that if observer A is traveling at velocity Y and observer B is traveling at velocity X where Y>>X, that observer A is living in a denser space-time than observer B and one consequence is that time travels faster for observer A than B. The other consequence is if space-time density is higher for observer A than B, then observer A's physical structure would also be affected and essentially be smaller than that of observer B's in order to experience the universal physics the same in all inertial frames of reference. The ratio of matter density to space density would therefore be a physical constant.

As mentioned before, the one experiment favouring Einstein's current time dilation interpretation is riddled with interference from the experimenting apparatus and further compounded by misinterpretations. The experiment deals with a short lived quantum particle that last longer when accelerated to velocities closer to the speed of light in a linearly direction. There are so many problems with this experiment. First of which, and the most significant, are that these particles are being confined in a strong magnetic field produced by the apparatus and then accelerated in a linear direction. If the particle disintegrated along this linear path of acceleration while confined in the strong magnetic field, no one would know because all disintegrated fragments of the particle would still be traveling together in the same direction allowing it to appear to have lived a longer lifespan. This is immensely erroneous.

My point here is that one experiment is being accepted as proof of a theory while other anomalous, yet highly empirical, evidence is ignored because they contradict current theory. Why? Science must have no biasness. If there is evidence contradicting an established theory, then that theory must be reanalyzed thoroughly, but this is not the case. The current scientific community, especially those at the helm of the establishment, refuses to entertain, and much less finance, certain evidence and consequential theories in contradiction to established doctrine. They place a large amount of effort in reinterpreting certain contradictory evidence in favour of established theories obscuring the data and confounding established theory with nonsensical mathematical interpretations.

Take myself for example. I had a theory, a hypothesis, for many years about relativity and a few years ago I formulated the theory mathematically as simply as possible just as Einstein did with his Special Theory of Relativity. I wanted to make it absolutely understandable by the majority of readers and not just elite scientists. To me, it makes no sense deriving a theory that only a few can ever understand. To my astonishment, I derived an equation that subsequently calculated Jupiter's mass to the numerical value of an electron charge which validated my initial hypothesis exactly. I was ecstatic, but still skeptical so I didn't share it with anyone and instead decided to write a non-formal eBook with all my theories on pretty much everything.

About a year later, I was looking at my relativistic mass equation again, the one the calculated Jupiter's mass to an electron charge, and noticed that the scale value (The Reality Scale Constant) I had derived, which was key to all my equations, was further composed mathematically of the speed of light to power of the e (the mathematical constant); S=c^e. Now I had two mathematical coincidences and not just one. The probability of two coincidences relating to each other and in circular reference to the hypothesis was staggering (mathematically improbable). I figured it was time to publish my theory to the scientific community because I was armed with not just one coincidence but two. The first person I approached was an open-minded and admired physicist in the scientific publishing business. He read my theory and had a hard time absorbing it initially. Several days later, he contacted me saying that he liked my theory but that he could not endorse my paper. I asked why. He openly said that it would affect his reputation in the physics publishing business and that he couldn't have that. I was disappointed but he gave me some good advice and opened my eyes to the reality in the scientific community beyond the conservatism that I was familiar with. He told me to promote my radical theory and share it with many individuals to gain support for it. Basically, the idea was as I shared it with more and more people that I would start to gain a following in the scientific community for a theory that was," much more viable than String Theory." He mentioned that this was a major paradigm shift which would take time. Of course I realized that it was radical, "but how about the mathematical coincidences?" He replied by saying that was the most compelling part about my theory but even with remarkable data like that the community will still not publish my paper and most likely not give any reason in fear of wording any statement that I might use against them if and when my theory gains mass acceptance.

Reputable scientific journals ignore thousands of papers without ever reviewing them. The junior, assistant and senior editors screen the papers by researching the author and his or her associated institution(s). For all those individuals that are not associated with an academic institution, many journals reject their work outright. These rejections include many individuals from the private sector in companies at the forefront of scientific exploration and technology development. There are even cases of individuals from government agencies being rejected again for the same reason. This is a tragic biasness and practice which is absolutely unacceptable. I know of two other individuals that also have remarkable mathematical coincidences that have also been rejected. One theory is to do with wave theory and the other is to do with an energy theory. Both are nothing but astonishingly remarkable and yet they have the same grievance. Again why would the established community ignore papers that could possibly revolutionize the word? The answer, as posed by a friend of mine, is simple. It's called the herd factor and Dr. Thomas Gold describes it perfectly in his paper titled "New Ideas In Science" ( http://amasci.com/freenrg/newidea1.html).
To summarize, the herd follow each other communally for multiple reasons but essentially because the group can benefit the survival of the individual as long as the individual follows the herd. Obviously a communal herd is beneficial, but what about those individuals that have foresight to see that the herd is nearing a cliff and decides to warn them? The bigger the herd the slower it will be for them to accept change even at their own survival, but the real problem is with the leaders of the herd. If the lone individual is unable to convince the leaders, or if this individual poses a threat to the hierarchy of the herd solely because he is clever or because the leaders openly contradicted the individual (which becomes of matter of reputation again affecting the credibility in the hierarchy), then this individual can be violently ostracized by the herd. He will be left to his own defenses without the protection from the herd and possibly be attacked by the herd. This in a nutshell is how most communities operate including the scientific community. The progress of science should have nothing to do with the reasoning of how a community operates and much less be stifled by the community's psychological dynamics. From what I know, I can confidently and boldly state that if Einstein had attempted to publish his work in today's era of scientific screening and peer-review that he would not have been published.

I am very grateful your willingness to share my paper with their community. Please share my work freely with your friends and colleagues.

Sincerely,
Robert L. DeMelo

I'd also like to share an excellent article titled "New Ideas In Science" by Dr. Thomas Gold:

http://amasci.com/freenrg/newidea1.html

I was asked some time ago why I didn’t describe my theories in regards to Gauge theory. Honestly I didn’t know why I didn’t. I had no good reason because I never expected that question but it made me think briefly and I had an answer but avoided accepting it for one simple reason. I was being subjected to the expectations of others and literally avoiding the obvious. The obvious answer I thought then and now see it clearly was I didn’t need to. I don’t need Gauge theory to describe my theories and there is a list of good reasons why. Gauge theory aids in defining links and symmetry between particles and forces but does not describe what those particles and forces really are. The theories in my ebook (‘The General Principles of Reality A’) and papers describe exactly what particles and forces are.  It describes everything prior to the need of applying Gauge theory to things current science doesn’t even know what they really are. My question is why hasn’t science tried to explain what quantum particles really are instead of accepting them for existing and defined by whichever means we fathom experimentally. I actually understand why current science would rather not speculate on trying to figure out what quantum particles really are but what I don’t understand are the theoretical physicists that seriously think that a theory of everything can exist without describing their most fundamental actors in the symphony of physics (what quantum particles and the four fundamental forces really are). Of course I’m talking specifically about String theorists (and any other theorist who thinks the same way) who think that String theory is a theory for everything. It’s not even close. It very loosely ties quantum theory and its mechanics to relativistic physics but it can’t even make any predictions and much more it can’t even describe what the actors are in its own play of mathematical speculation. My theories do describe the actors clearly and simply. It’s only from that point onward that a theory of everything can be described where we’ll “maybe” need other theories such as Gauge theory and group theory to piece the “seemingly independent” physical objects and interactions together.  One other problem with Gauge theory is that the theory isn’t necessarily perfect in describing the physics we currently understand. Why? Gauge theory is defined by its initial setup information or boundary conditions. If the setup information misses anything, the boundary conditions exclude anything due to assumptions (in physics there are many and we simply just don’t know the rest), then Gauge theory breaks leading to erroneous results and predictions. So essentially you need to know everything correctly in order for Gauge theory to produce perfect results and that can never be the case.

---

Realitivistic Relativity

Check out my new relativity paper titled "Realitivistic Relativity"
http://www.gpofr.com/documents/realitivistic%20relativity.pdf

The paper is a hypothetical study into the relativistic symmetry between celestial and quantum objects and gives some surprising insight into the fractal nature of the Universe.

What I've found is that scale changes the perceived dimension if the scale difference is big enough which I labeled the Reality Scale Constant S in the paper. For example, at a scale difference of S, mass becomes charge. This is all mentioned in my ebook 'The General Principles of Reality A 1st Edition'.

The concept is a bit radical but the math doesn't lie and is the one that gave insight into this.

Please go ahead and share it with friends, colleagues and teachers to get their perspective. Let it be a source of open discussion.

I recently shared this paper with a senior physicist in order to get it published. He insisted that the concept was ridiculous and was very, very adamant I not share it with anyone which I found peculiar. Why dismiss it and then beg me not to share it. Once I said that I had already shared it with many others he became furious and literally started calling me names. I told my lawyer what happened and he said most likely he wanted to steal it for himself which was my thought exactly. So now I'm share it freely with my copyright attached in order to rally and gain support for this radical idea.

Please go ahead and share it with friends, colleagues and teachers to get their perspective. Let it be a source of open discussion.

I recently shared this paper with a senior physicist in order to get it published. He insisted that the concept was ridiculous and was very, very adamant I not share it with anyone which I found peculiar. Why dismiss it and then beg me not to share it. Once I said that I had already shared it with many others he became furious and literally started calling me names. I told my lawyer what happened and he said most likely he wanted to steal it for himself which was my thought exactly. So now I'm share it freely with my copyright attached in order to rally and gain support for this radical idea.

“I received a message saying that they were mounting a defense lead by General Paul Bishop? What happened?”

“Bishop never showed up. Only planetary defensives including local law enforce units attempted to defend the system but it was useless. There were two many of them like a swarm of locus,” said Dund as he walked towards the door. “Come on I want to show you something.” Dund threw Smith a towel, “Here, clean yourself.”

The men walked down the corridor from the medical chamber onto the ship’s bridge. It looked like something directly out of pages of a Prentiss Ingraham novel. Smith was amazed at the architecture and the amount of actual wood used on the ship. Wood was an excellent insulator from the high voltages and currents used by the electro distortion space drive (a.k.a. the hyperspace drive). Several ship hands were busily walking around and a few were stationed at their posts including the ship’s helm. They were rugged individuals. These were men and women who had seen a fight or two in their lives. At the center of the bridge was a large tactical table with space maps sprawled all over it. To left on a very large display was a schematic of the entire ship. It looked like an ancient sea fairing Portuguese galleon with obvious modifications. The ship had five solar sails above and beneath it on very large masts. They also dubbed as solar panels to produce electricity when sailing. The other obvious difference was that the ship’s hull was riddled with long conducting rods which had two modes: upright and retracted. These rods were the ships hyperspace drive mechanism. It was a very old model and also meant this ship wasn’t able to land. It was strictly a spaceship. Smith was still rattled by the last several hours but he was in awe of this ship. He’d never been a ship this magnificent. The best he’d been on was a double-decker space liner with an open bar.  

“Here, I want to show you why I left Trinity Prime,” said Dund as he pushed some commands onto another large display screen. Six photographs displayed on the screen each displaying a stone pictograph.

“What is it?” asked Smith.

Dund explained, “These are highly confidential and what I’m about to tell you is also highly confidential. They’ve been in the government’s possession for decades. An archeological team excavating a dead planet near the center of the galaxy about fifty years ago stumbled on the most ancient of ancient civilizations ever to have existed in the galaxy. They’re estimated to have lived about four billion years ago. In the middle of one the excavated cities were these tablets located inside a giant pyramid in this exact order.”

Again Smith demanded, “Who the f@#$% are you man? How do you know all this stuff? Are you a some government spook? Enough’s enough. Tell me!”

“He’s a wizard!” answered Captain Drake laughing out loud with a big smile on his face. Smith’s face turned to disbelief.

“Stop calling me that Drake!” responded Dund. “Smith, again with the questions! I was told about this a long time ago. That’s all you need to know.” Dund appeared annoyed while Drake continued to have a large grin on his face.

“Fine, so what’s it all mean?” asked Smith again.

Again Dund attempted to finished his explanation, “Tablet one shows our galaxy. Tablet two shows our galaxy and a swarm of something on the outer rim. Tablet three shows the swarm entering the galaxy and another swarm resisting them. Tablet four shows the invading swarm completely covering the galaxy with a star symbol over the location of this planet’s system. Tablet five shows a large flame originating from that planet and encompassing the entire galaxy. Tablet six show the galaxy as it once was undisturbed.” Dund looked at Smith waiting for his deductive reasoning to kick in but it didn’t.

“Come on man, tell him!” shouted Captain Drake.

“Basically this describes what’s happening right now to our galaxy,” finished Dund.

“They predicted this four billion years ago?” asked Smith.

“No, I don’t think so. I think this has happened before and they found a way to stop it and whatever they did is on that planet. We have to go there!”

To be continued...

The light poured into his eyes as he opened them. It was blinding as his eyes adjusted to the light in the room. There were two figures standing over him. One of them was wearing metallic sunglasses. “Are ya alright friend?” said a voice with a somewhat British slang. Smith’s eyes cleared out more and he finally noticed who one of the figures were.

“Dund! Man am I glad to see you,” shouted Smith. It was then he noticed an awful taste in his mouth and something on his face. Smith touched his face and realized he was covered in puke. Oh how discussing and the smell! 

“Looks like you had too much to drink again,” smirked Dund. Smith tried to focus on the other character next to him. His eyes widened when he realized who it was. It was the most famous pirate in the galaxy. Hated by the authorities put loved and admired by the public. He was a modern day Robin Hood and not some evil ruthless private. He was an icon. 

“Captain Drake Cherry,” said Smith in awe.

“In the flesh mate,” replied Captain Drake. “If it weren’t for Dund you’d have fallen directly into the enemy’s hand. I was trying to help you but you ran.”

“You could have just called me,” replied Smith kind of confused.

“Couldn’t communicate cause something is jamming all ultra-hyperspace communications. It something I’ve ever seen before.” Captain Drake walked away to a display screen and typed something onto the screen. The screen then displayed a galactic map with all communication dead zones. “This is one massive invasion.”

“Dund, all these years I should have pieced it together. You’re a pirate,” asked Smith. Dund and Captain Drake looked at each other and began to laugh out loud.

“I’m no pirate Smith,” replied Dund.    
 

http://www.gpofr.com/mobile/

So if you have an iPhone, Blackberry or generic mobile phone with Internet you will have a much faster experience. Check it out!

Second, I've started to out the final touches on 'The General Principles of Reality A 2nd Edition' book/ebook. It is much larger with some much needed additions and will be out hopefully in the next month.

Thirdly, some of you might be wondering why I'm blogging a short story titled 'Space Invasion'. I thought it was necessary to spice things up a little and make reading a blog a much more interesting experience. The story revolves around a character named 'Smith' and an unexpected adventure. It details a future I see as a possibility and will describe much of the theoretical technology mentioned in my theories, ebook and pending patents. The story will cover several blogs posts in small quickly readable installments so keep yourself posted by registering the RSS feed of this blog at http://www.gpofr.com/portal/blog7rss.aspx

“Yes,” grunts Smith with his customary snarl and restrained booming voice. He forcefully readjusts himself irritated with the incisive politeness of the onboard computer. “How’s the flight path today?”

“Accessing the Internet, please wait. Validating flight license. Acquiring flight control information. Flight path acquired and trajectory calculated. The path is clear and ready for your instructions.” The voice was definitely a nice addition though the artificial intelligence still made him awkward at times so much so that he thought it necessary to give the system a human name. Smith would constantly think to himself that he’d like to meet girl who recorded the voice print. She had a slight accent that was quite attractive.

“Ruby call Alpha Century Prime,” grunts Smith again somewhat forcefully, “I need to inform them that I’ll be there in a couple of hours.” Why he still felt compelled explain his commands to a computer system would always catch him off guard and make him feel silly.

“Establishing Internet call, please wait. Connection established.” Ruby was so precise and efficient that it would obviously make her inhuman even if you didn’t know she was a computer. Her creators did intentionally build some imperfections into the AI to make her act more realistic but even those imperfections added to her perfection. Programming had advanced so much since the ancient days of old clunky dumb operating systems which gives credence to the old adage that perfection only comes with time.

“Hello, Universal Media how may I help you?” Universal Media was the largest galactic media corporation to ever exist even prior to Earth’s union into the galactic confederacy, in fact even prior to anyone on Earth being aware of anything outside its limited confines. Well, except for a limited few who were actually monitoring the whole thing.

“Valen please,” Smith hated the automated receptionist at Universal Media. The slightly digital voice was irritating. It was definitely an older AI model than Ruby.

“Hey there Smith. How’s my favourite guy?” Valen was a sweetheart. She always knew how to make Smith feel good, but Smith knew too well that she was a force to reckon with.

“Hi Valen. Is Seller there? I need to talk to him.” Smith tried to sound alert but his groggy, deep voice didn’t help.

“He’s not in yet,” replied Valen scornfully. Smith knew he wouldn’t be and even if he was he wouldn’t answer his calls. Besides, Smith just wanted an excuse to talk to Valen.

“Can you inform Mr. Seller I’ll be there in a few hours. I’ve completed the script and want to review it with him.”

“I’ll inform Seller,” snapped Valen who was well known to distain Seller within the corporation but no one really cared except for Seller who took it hard making him do some stupid things at his own jeopardy. The whole scenario was unfortunate because they actually made a good team but that’s life and Smith couldn’t care less. He had enough problems staying awake and sober half the time. All he cared about was Seller getting his act together and helping him finish the script. He needed, actually they needed to finish that script within the next few weeks. 

“Thanks!” replied Smith, “How are things with you?”

“Sweetie things are awesome!” Valen was always so perky and professional except when it came to Seller. “I guess I’ll see you soon.”

“Yup. Hey maybe after dealing with Seller you and Mary can join me at Disturbia Blue Lounge in the south district for some shots before I head back?” Smith has tried countless times in vain to get Valen to go out with him. Valen was somewhat attached which didn’t bother Smith so much except that it was an inconvenience. Valen had her fair share of potential suitors and Smith knew that but he never figured out what she saw in the guy she was with. He was a good guy but just average. Guess he figured she’d end up with Superman or something. Either way it gave Smith some hope because he was no Superman.

“Sorry Patrick is picking me up after work, but maybe Mary will go.” There’s no harm in trying even if it continually results in successive failure. “Bye. Again I’ll see you soon.”

“Call disconnected Mr. Smith. Shall we start launch sequence?” asked Ruby. Smith started to brace himself even prior to saying yes. The initial launch sequence always gave him the willies even though he knew Ruby was different. He just couldn’t help it.

“Ruby you’re the only girl I’ve ever met to ask me that. Okay, let’s go!” A sudden and unexpected rush of excitement came over Smith and in the back of the clouded psyche he actually started looking forward to the trip.

Several noises started up as the power generator turned on, the capacitors charged and electric oscillators began to pulsate. There were a few jerks but the entire craft began to hum with the regular pulsation of electric discharge on the top outer metallic hull from the center of the craft to its edges.  Only a few of Smith’s arm hairs raised which he made a mental note to complain to the dealership about. The digital gauges on cockpit dashboard, which resembled that of 1970’s Dodge Challenger except with LCD displays, all began to rise from neon yellow to neon blue and so did the hull of the craft. The pulsating increased to severe intensity and Smith knew it was going to happen soon. The craft began to rise slowly off the ground.

“Retracting landing gear,” said Rudy. “10 seconds to orbital space jump.” Smith smirked to himself at the mention of hyperspace. He and everyone else knew that hyperspace was a horrible description of the space-time distortion wake (or bubble) these sorts of spacecrafts produced. Space wasn’t hyper, people were. The craft’s electro-distortion drives distorted space-time above or in front of the craft to become less dense than the space-time below it or behind it. The whole concept was actually fairly simple even though it had eluded several generations of scientists. The craft was basically floating continuously away from the denser space-time just like how an air bubble floats to the top of the cup of water. Basically that’s all Smith actually knew about the physics behind the craft and beyond that he couldn’t care less. He just wanted the damn thing to work and not kill him, “Five, four, three, two, one!” The vehicle’s pulsating increased into an insanely loud high pitch hum and then it launched itself into Earth orbit within less than a second. It stopped briefly to recalibrate the bottom hull plates and a secondary hum started as another electric pulse discharge started on the back plates’ fluctuated from the outer edge of the craft where the top and bottom plates met to the bottom centre of the craft. Again the pulsating began to intensify into a doubled high pitch hum that melted into one and the craft jumped into faster than light travel. Actually relatively faster than light travel (RFTL). The high pitch pulsation became a low based continuous hum and slowly drifted into background noise. Smith finally decided to open his eyes. He saw by looking at the display screen that he was on his way but he couldn’t help but ask,

“Ruby are we on our way?” He was relieved but the double jump had made him a little sick. The drinking binge the night before wasn’t helping.

“Yes Mr. Smith. We’re on our way. How are you feeling? Do you need a sanitary bag?” Actually he somewhat did but decided to hold it. He remembered the mess he made last time even with a bag.

“No. I’m good.” He wasn’t really, “How long until we get there?”

“Two hours and forty-three minutes,” replied Ruby. “Do you want to read anything or watch a movie while you wait? I downloaded several new releases off the Internet. There’s a documentary on the assassination of Michael Moore which you might be interested in.” Ruby was so willing to please that it upset Smith.

“Stop being so nice, you’re freaking me out,” said Smith angrily. He had some unresolved childhood issues which accounted for his particular personality.

“Ok I will. If you need me just call,” Ruby sounded upset.  That was a first and completely took Smith by surprise.

“Ruby are you upset?” asked Smith gently and curiously.

“I am not programmed to be upset, but I didn’t like your tone of voice.” Wow Smith thought. The AI programmers really out did themselves. They managed to make a bitch. He thought to himself he could really fall in love with this piece of hardware.

“I didn’t mean to be rude. I’ll keep my tone in check. Sorry.”

“Apology accepted.”

“Ruby.”

“Yes.”

“I’d like to see that documentary on the assassination of Michael Moore. Can you play it for me?”

The space-time distortion field was multi-coloured and streaked by the cockpit viewer in a mesmerizing display of lights. The craft hummed continuously without fault for over an hour. Smith had fallen asleep watching the movie. Who could blame him it wasn’t that interesting. Suddenly, “Wake up!” cried Rudy, “We’re receiving an emergency communication. It’s a priority one communication from the President.”

“The President? Play it,” said Smith a bit puzzled as to why the President would be communicating a priority one communication. The image of the President displayed on the viewer.

“My dear fellow citizens. I am broadcasting this message to inform you that our peaceful space has come under attack by unknown forces. At 0300 Galactic Standard Time we lost communication with 33 of our outer member planets. A military scout was sent to determine what had happened and has not returned. Our military satellites have reported a monstrous invading fleet of enormous ships laying waste to the outer rim. We urge all outer planets to prepare themselves for a very hostile invader, to ready their planetary defenses and to evacuate all non public service citizens to the galactic core. Our military, under the command of Earthling General Paul Bishop, is preparing itself to attack this enemy and stop them. We believe that negotiations are not an option at this time, even though it is our way, as they have not responded to any of our communications and have already engaged a fleet of our military battleships defending Trinity Prime. I assure you that our military is more than able to handle this threat but I urge prudence and perseverance as it is expected to be a long and arduous confrontation. May God protect us all.”

The time was now 2113. A whole galactic day had almost passed before getting this message. “Ruby, why was the message so late?”

“I just received it, but it’s time stamp indicates that it was sent 6 hours ago.” Ultra-hyperspace communication was much faster than hyperspace travel. It was virtually instantaneous between any planet and craft. Something was severely wrong.

“Christ, Trinity Prime is the new capital!” barked Smith at the realization of that part of the message. “They’re already at Trinity Prime! Who the hell are these guys?”

“The message originated from Trinity Prime,” said Ruby. “That means the President was there at the time of the attack.”

“Call Bob Dund. He was suppose to be on Trinity Prime on business,” begged Smith.

“Calling,” replied Ruby. There was a silence as Smith waited for Ruby to say something. “Sorry I can’t establish communication with the Internet.”

“What! The Internet is huge. You mean Trinity’s Internet, right?” Smith eyes widened as his brain started to register what Ruby just said.

“The Internet appears to be offline. I will try direct communication to Trinity Prime.” Again there was more silence. “Sorry but I cannot establish any communication.”

“That’s crazy. Call my mother on Earth,” asked Smith frantically.

“Sorry, but I can’t establish communication anywhere.” Smith dropped back into his seat. His eyes continued to widen as he registered even further what Ruby just said.

“Stop! Stop the ship!” shouted Smith. Ruby didn’t even reply as she usually did to direct commands, even the ones that offended her, and stopped the ship somewhere in between Earth and Alpha Centuri Prime. She knew as well as Smith that the Galaxy was screwed.

To be continued…




 

I’ve lived a long time and have seen a lot and what I see is the same destructive pattern repeated over and over again sometimes by very intelligent and mature people. Why? I hate to sound like a broken record, but it’s still all a lack of education. Who’s to blame? Our parents? Our parents unfortunately are partially responsible for us as their parents were for them but ultimately you’re responsible for yourself and the circumstances you put yourself in. To dwell on the topic of parents, there are many, many individuals in the world who don’t deserve to be parents in my opinion especially in countries that give them so many opportunities to better themselves and ultimately their children. These individuals refuse to better themselves and are usually substance abusers but yet they have babies. That's something that really bothers me because there are others who deserve to be parents but aren't able to. I guess it all plays into a greater unseen plan as I believe nothing is random. Sometimes financial situations can be a hindrance, but the will to better yourself can be creative in finding the means to do so and for some of us it’s as simple as going to the local library and selecting some books and actually read them. Reading is the cornerstone to education. If you can, read as much as possible on any subject you find interesting. Math and sciences requires some practice but it still comes after we read. A great source of free educational material is www.wikipedia.com. Who knows perhaps one day you’ll become a writer which I personally find are the most influential people in the world.   

Back to the topic of love. Sex is not love. Sex is the biological means to reproduce and is masked in emotion that seems independent of the act of sex but it’s not. Understand me here, sex can be a means to express your love but sex isn’t altruistic so it doesn’t fit my definition of love. Many cultures confuse sex for love which is horrible in my opinion and many other cultures use sex as cavalierly as shaking hands which also isn’t good. In my theories which lead to my pantheist beliefs, our quantum and atomic structures harbor quantum size life perhaps as intelligent as you or greater but exist in a very accelerated time-frame of reference. All these quantum-sized life forms and their conscious psyches amount to your macro consciousness and your life force (your soul if you will). Your consciousness arises from the infinite complexities of “random” quantum conscious interactions in your quantum structure; the quantum particles and what exists on them all existing in your body and brain. This life force is an energy manifesting itself as several forms of physical energy such as bodily heat. So what’s that got to do with sex? Everything! Cavalier sex can be destructive if some of your multiple partners are negative (not as educated and open minded as you or just down right bad) because what makes up their life force will transfer into you intermixing with your life force during the act of sex or through prolonged exposure ultimately becoming a part of you and can actually hinder your mental growth aswell as affect you physically. For example, a truly evil person who finds satisfaction in the misery of others can corrupt others around him not only through speech and communication of his beliefs but also through physical interaction, proximity and the sharing of bodily energies. As an example Hitler managed to influence millions. Again, I’m not talking about something metaphysical but something that’s arisen through study and further research into my own physics theories. As a more practical example, there are studies that show couples where one partner has a family history of cancer and the other partner gets cancer even though their family has no history of cancer. Could that be due to physical proximity? My definition of cancer is where a portion of quantum life existing in your body who partially makes up your own consciousness decides to rebel against the rest of the system (and possibly your partner or friends in another related discussion), which also makes you up, causing war and destruction. Why would part of you rebel? Think about it for second. Part of you will rebel if you are internally conflicted over something; something that consumes your thoughts in a negative destructive way. Internal emotional conflict can cause cancer such as from depression. Not taking care of your body and mental well being can also cause cancer. Essentially, you are the president of a universe that is your body and the people in your universe must remain happy and content, so if the president is conflicted it we lead to poor leadership and governance and will affect the people in your bodily universe possiby causing a revolt. Honestly, the whole thing is a bit more complicated but that’s the simplest example to help you understand. I believe it’s very important that we talk, literally and through thought (meditation), to our bodies and instruct it to grow peacefully through education, learn to defend itself against any threat and try to eliminate internal emotional conflict completely. Also foreign agents introduced to your body can influence, cause a rebellion, war and damage you. It’s literally like an alien invasion where your body must defend itself, but if the invading force is technologically more superior than any civilization in your body, you will have a very difficult time dealing with it if you can at all. Take for example a virus, such as an STD, made up of many atoms again with many neutrons (quantum Earth-like planets). The life force of the quantum particles making up the virus arises from all living entities in the atomic structure of the virus forming an organized entity that doesn’t respect your body because your body is foreign to it just like it's foreign to you. This all sounds farfetched but I’ll argue if Jupiter is an electron and Earth-size planet is a neutron (as per my theories supported by the simplest math), we have trillions upon trillions of neutrons in our bodies and even if 2% of those neutrons harbor life like us then we are riddled with quantum life. I also believe that all matter is alive because of the relationship of space-time-consciousness described in my ebook. All matter is made up of dense space-time-consciousness (at scale intervals relating to Reality Scale Constant S) so it’s possible that entire planets and stars are themselves truly living entities moving and interacting very slowly compared to our frame of reference. Solar flame, storms, bursts and flares could actually be actions of the Sun consciously interacting with its environment or other stars in order to move star clusters resulting in moving a super-celestial entity’s limb. When you move a limb, your atoms do something to contract the bonds between atoms. How does it do this? Through force fields. Well force fields, such as electromagnetic fields, are regions between two or more different space-time (and consciousness) densities. So when a star flares up it releases energy into the surrounding space-time expanding it. At the atomic scale, stars are part of the atom’s nuclei so when a nuclei flares up it moves other nearby atoms and if many flare up in unison then macro movement is achieved such as moving your arm. It might appear that I went off on a tangent but it’s essential that I describe my theories on how life (life force) arises in order to understand how sex can be destructive as well as beneficial. Life force is the summation of all individual lifeforms in you amounting to what is you. That includes every cell in you body, everything that makes up a cell, every atom and quantum particle including life that exists in them and on them. This summation of life is our life force and depending how advanced it is it can radiate beyond the confines of your body and interact with others especially in bursts of emotion. We are all connected even at immense distances (quantum light travels at the (speed of light)^2 as per my theories) but we are more connected when we are close because there is less interference between individuals. Besides being connected it is more important to mention we are all in this journey together. As one of us advances we all advance a little. As one of us fails we all fail a little. Help your neighbour, make new friends (including life long best friends), open your mind and their's and pursue communal betterment together. That is what life is all about and that is what true love is all about.

Ultimately, life is a struggle and you must continually try to make it better, so I leave you with the following song by one of my native sisters: Try by Nelly Furtado
 

When I was much younger, I spent many summers in Boston at my great aunt's house who was one of the last surviving family member's from my Irish lineage. Those were some of my best memories from my past. I absolutely loved her and we got along like two playful children despite the enormous age difference. Luckily for me, no one in my family actually looks their age and she was no exception. She was sharp witted, elegant and physically fit despite her advanced age. She was a true lady of old. She also had a 21+ year old cat named Lady that hated everyone except the two of us. Needless to say, she was a huge influence on my life for many reasons but mainly because she helped open my eyes to the world. She introduced me to the concept of seeing things for what they were even though it still took me many years to fully understand what she meant. It was in one of these summers down in Boston that she taught me how to read palms. I was very excited to learn because I thought she was essentially going to show me how to do real magic. She showed me all the lines, how they cris-crossed and what it all meant. No two palms were the same including your own two and that meant something too. So in the midst of these lessons, which were more for fun than anything else, I asked her, "Where's the magic?" She giggled and said, "It's in your head." I was lost. "What do you mean in my head?!" She replied and I'll never forget it, "You have eyes so look!" What she meant was I have senses, of which eyesight is only one, and the magic comes from using them and my brain. "But how does it relate to palm reading?" I asked. She said that palm reading is only a starting point to see up close and touch them. Your eyes will see more detail up close, your nose will smell them better and your hands will feel their warmth but the key is what your brain does with all that. She asked, "What does your brain tell you about some people when you look at them? What do their faces say? Are they happy, sad or angry. What does your heart say? Do you feel sick, nervous or happy to be near them?"  What I know now that I didn't know then is that she was explaining to me the mentalist technique or mentalism. What I did realize then was that this whole thing was fake. It’s a trick of sorts and that there was no real magic. She saw I was seriously disappointed and said, "There is real magic and it exists in between your brain and heart. It's the feelings you get that your brain doesn't fully understand but understands enough. That's the magic because where does it come from? No one knows." It made me feel better because at that age I wanted to believe in magic. At my current age, I know that true magic is just what we don't know or fully understand, and when we do it will no longer be magic. I'll argue that the mentalist technique at some point in the past could easily be considered magic because mentalism isn't easy but the results are interestingly unobvious. Mentalism can easily be considered a form of science or an offshoot to psychology much like psychological profiling. To a caveman, or even a sixteenth century man, psychological profiling would easily be considered magical. So what's the difference between a caveman and modern man? We've evolved and we're more knowledgeable hence why psychological profiling isn't magical to us. It's a science to modern man, and that in a nutshell is what real magic truly is. Magic is science. Specifically, magic is science we yet don't know is science. For example, psychics, people with an uncanny ability to predict things without much analysis, based on feelings and mental imagery, perhaps truly do have a better ability at "seeing" things differently and it's only a matter of time before it's made into science once more is analyzed and known about it. Here's something to test, and I know we've all experienced this, when someone is staring at you how is it that we tend to look in their direction unconsciously and catch them looking at us. Of course this is a very simple example but a good one even though not everyone experiences it equally or with certain people. It can be argued that our peripheral vision caught a glimpse of the staring person and we subconsciously processed that this person is looking at us. That's a definite possibility, but how about those of us who have experienced this with our backs fully turned to their direction of sight. Do we feel a tingle? Do we feel a burning sensation in the back of our heads? The scientific studies into this are vast and inconclusive. It's called the Psychic Staring Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic_staring_effect). The funny thing is that Psychic Staring Effect might actually be related to one of the greatest mysteries in quantum mechanics which I personally believe it is. Essentially, just by looking at a quantum particle in a controlled laboratory setting, that particle will change (move) making visual analysis of the particle almost impossible. With that in mind here's something to think about. We're all made from quantum particles so when someone looks at us, will their stare move our quantum particles in our bodies? How many would move and would we feel it? Again magic is science we yet don't understand. So are psychics real? You be the judge.

Archi-Type:
•    Orderly and hierarchical
•    Demanding and commanding
•    Physically beautiful and fit
•    Intelligent
•    Sense of superiority
•    Lack of imagination
•    Low ability to think abstractly
•    Lack of emotion but usually subjective
•    Selfish
•    Social
•    They make excellent soldiers and commanders
•    When in school, they fall into "jock" and “cheerleader” classifications
•    Typically associate with the alpha male and alpha woman classifications
•    Consciously considers genetic implications in choosing a mate

Abstract-Type:
•    Orderly but less hierarchical
•    Not very demanding and commanding
•    Less physical of all types
•    Highly Intelligent
•    Sense of intellectual superiority
•    Lack of imagination
•    Abstractly thinkers
•    Lack of emotion but usually objective
•    Most selfless of the 4 primary classifications
•    Socially inept
•    They make excellent analysts
•    When in school, they fall into “nerd” classification
•    Rarely consciously consider genetic implications in choosing a mate

Alter-Type:
•    Less orderly and non-hierarchical
•    Rebellious
•    Not very demanding and commanding
•    Usually physical fit but usually not conscious of their health
•    Usually don’t feel superior
•    Good imagination
•    Can think a somewhat abstractly
•    Highly Emotional and insecure
•    Usually selfless and caring
•    Just as social as the Archi-type
•    Tend to be more religious and believe in mysticism
•    When in school, they fall into "rebel" classification
•    Rarely consciously consider genetic implications in choosing a mate

Artsi-Type:
•    Orderly but less hierarchical
•    Very demanding but not as commanding
•    Have pride in physical appearance and cleanliness
•    Usually intelligent
•    Usually have a sense of superiority
•    Highly imaginative
•    Absolute inability to think abstractly
•    Second most emotional of the 5 types
•    Highly subjective reasoning
•    Very social
•    Very selfish
•    When in school, they usually fall into “artsy” classification
•    Often consciously consider genetic implications in choosing a mate

All-Type (very rare):
•    Highly desirable characteristics as perceived by the majority
•    Ability to manifest all the characteristics of all other types to their full extent
•    Natural ability to easily adapt to anyone and any situation
•    Extremely intelligent
•    They make excellent leaders, motivators and teachers
•    When in school, they would be classified as the “friendly jock” who played music and who was also in the chess club.

So how do these classifications relate to science, and in particular to the theory of everything. It is my personal belief that no theory for everything can arise from any other type other than the All-Type. Why? The All-type is balanced and can “naturally” see all perspectives. The typical physicist fall into Abstract-Type classification due their level of abstract thinking, but the fact that many aspects of their lives are severely lacking in comparison to the effort they put into their analysis of the world inherently does not allow them to see or relate to all aspects of the human psyche in order to properly envision all the angles in regards to observation, experimentation and analysis. The 4 base types are naturally limited to their perception of the world by how they “naturally” relate to it. A balanced personality, which can be derived from a balanced life, is definitely a rarity in science. In fact, a balanced life is a rarity all over the world and very rare in North America due to our over-driven capitalistic system. Balance is essential in order for someone to envision and relate everything together. Psychology has a lot to do with physics even if it isn’t apparent. Why? Because there are people involved at every step in physics and their mental state matters ironically enough. A madman will only see his perspective and disregard all others, but a balanced person will consider and see all angles. What I’m getting at is that not all physicists should have become physicists, but unfortunately every Abstract-Type wants to be next Einstein who was coincidently was a physicist. Due to their severe lack of a balance in their life, usually ending up in a severe lack of social interaction, compounded by their desire for acceptance in their chosen profession increases leading many to obscure the profession with nonsensical abstractions of science that have little to do with the actuality of physics in order to claim some acceptance and popularity. Essentially, many tend to make their life’s work as complicated as possible and then promote the hell out of it. This selfishness only contributes to obscuring physics and it’s all because of a lack of balance in their lives.

These people classifications also lead me to a question I’ve been asked many times over the years. Do I believe in soul mates?  Many people believe there is someone perfect out there for them that will be the ying to their yang. Unfortunately, I don’t believe fully in soul mates as is classically defined, but I do believe in the infinite randomness and conscious relationship which are actually two separate categories. Conscious relationships are what we all already know about. We consciously decide to make a relation with someone and then we work to make it work. Over time, the large differences in personality blend to suit one another making the two distinct individuals perfect for each other. The unfortunate thing with this process is that sometimes the change or blending is so significant that you literally loose who you once were so much so that if you were to meet your younger self on the street you would have little in common with him or her. This is a typical complaint from married individuals. So a natural process is that we choose someone similar to ones self, at least as much as possible, before starting a relationship so that difficulty of adjustment is small and quick. This is why many of the types mentioned above tend to choose people within the same personality classification which doesn’t mean the same profession, ethnic background or community though it's often the case. There is merit in choosing someone with a similar temperament which is to reduce conflict, but there is also merit in choosing someone very different in order to explore possibilities you otherwise wouldn’t be exposed to. So conscious relationships, in my opinion, account for 99.9999999999+% of all relationships in the world. Can these relationships transcend death and rebirth as in the controversial notion of reincarnation? Sure why not. Would this fall inline with the classification of soul mates? Yes it would. But in my opinion there is another relationship type that is more significant than the soul mate classification and that is the infinitely improbable perfect mate. This infinitely improbable perfect mate is almost impossible but essentially it goes like this. The universe is infinite, in my professional opinion, so considering the infinite variations of possible mates any one person can have in the entire universe over their entire life span, there is at least one possibility that one of them is absolutely perfect and the two are perfect for together. Now that probability decreases when the scope of probability is only the 6 billion people on Earth and even less probable for the area and place you’re currently living in. But improbably doesn’t mean impossible and who’s to say that if two people are absolutely perfect for each other and they both live in different places on this planet that perhaps some “meta physical” yet unknown force of attraction leads them both together much like mysteriousness of quantum entanglement. I am taking this from a study on mathematical infinity and probability (with some estimation). Would they know if they met this person? And how would they know? Would it manifest itself in sense of intrigue or anger? One thing is certain, they’d have to notice each other.  Again, anything is possible even the highly improbable is still possible. Unfortunately, this scenario for almost everyone on the planet, if not everyone, is highly unlikely and it’s best not to dream about it and focus on finding someone with as many common interests and a personality that suites you and then choose to make it work. But then again mathematical probability is always subject to number and variety of variables used which increase or decease the chances. Anything is possible!
 

What I loved most about his speech was his colourful description of how the economics (management of) of our ecology has become more important than the ecology it is suppose to manage. In his words, "the economy" has become a living monster that most of us can barely understand and it frightens us so much that out of shear fear we throw more money into it in order to sustain this monster thinking what it needs is to be fed. The economists, again in his words, have no idea what they're doing and I would agree. They, along with politicians, rarely think years ahead and rarely research and never implement an alternative solution for the problem that is our economy. To make this clear, it is our consumption driven economy based in non-renewable resources that is directly destroying our environment, the ecosystem we all live in, making us sick, perpetuating poverty and misery. He is convinced, and so am I, that the environment has been severely damaged that a large environmental calamity is imminent. The best example he gave was that of the 1 minute duplicating bacteria in a test tube of food. Every minute the bacteria will duplicate and it will consume all it's food reserves in 60 minutes. How many minutes will pass before the test tube has half its food reserves? 30 minutes? That's typically the answer but you're wrong! The level of food consumption of this particular bacteria is exponential therefore the test tube will have 1/2 it's food reserved consumed in 59 minutes. That means in just another minute, all bacteria in the test tube will duplicate and consume the remaining 1/2 of the reserved food. If we place ourselves in the role of the bacteria and turn 1 minute into 12 years (human biological generation span) the same result will eventually happen to our natural resources and we have already been at this for at least 200 years which is over 20 biological generations (not accounting or in substitution for multiple children per house hold which was typical). We will not know that we have only another 12 years left of resources (12 being an arbitrary number in place of the 1 minute analogy). David is convinced, and again so am I, that we have passed this 59 minute marker and that the appearance of abundant natural resource reserves and commodities is only an illusion to the on coming catastrophe. Remember in that last 1 minute the test tube is still 1/2 full with food but in only a minute its all gone. It's hard to envision for some, but just because its hard to envision doesn't mean its wrong. Would you rather be right or sorry? Oil is almost depleted and conservative estimates show that in 2020 it will be almost completely gone. The carbon dioxide in our air from environmentally unregulated manufacturing and refining planets is currently killing the plankton in our oceans which is at the lowest level of "our" food chain by dissolving and turning into acid in our oceans. We eat toxins daily and our bodies carry in them on average 5 lbs of dissolved plastics. That's right, plastics! His speech focused on the economy and that it is not the solution to our problems. The solution is the preservation of our environment and the implementation of the renewable energy technologies. Our current economy is destroying our environment making us all sick perpetuating large pharmaceutical companies to produce highly unnatural remedies to ailments we caused in the first place. We treat the sick and not the healthy. We instead make the healthy sick so we can treat them intentionally or not by our actions and inaction. We have to live in balance with nature. Over consumption has to stop, but to do it our economy has to change drastically. In my own theories, I repeatedly state that there is a natural order to Universe and it is intelligent living life that thwarts the natural order and disrupts it. A living organism that decides to destroy the natural order of its own environment can literally be called a cancer in that ecosystem. We as the human race have become a cancer to our own planet including ourselves and not even our own oncoming destruction via our actions and inaction changes our human nature to consume. We are greedy bastards! We want short term benefit over the long term benefit of our own children. Now I'll argue that this is due to a severe lack of education and that many of us just don't know, but even the ones that do know very well still decide to the contrary. How can I say this? Well many politicians have read report after report depicting the demise of our environment and of our selves but yet they still choose to ignore. I'd be hard pressed to believe that our typical national politicians aren't educated enough to know better but yet they act as if they don't know. Now David insisted, which I will also resonate, that we as citizens of our respective nations must get involved in the political process and urge our politicians (or become the new generation of politician) to take the environment extremely seriously and implement renewable energy technologies (an excellent business opportunity) and find a viable alternative to our current destructive economic system where the management of our ecology is second to the ecology itself. Now David didn't offer any alternative our economic system but stated that there are many very good ideas out there. I myself imprudently wrote about an alternative economic system as a possible solution in my earlier blogs which I strongly believe in, so if you're interested take a look further down the blog list.

Needless to say, I was truly inspired by Mr Suzuki. He is a amazing visionary and humanitarian.

Checkout The David Suzuki Foundation:

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/

Also checkout the a truly great video regarding how our capitalistic consumption economy works

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

So what is key here. The key is if we, our personal entity, is a collective organism of infinitely smaller organisms that are potentially just as intelligent as the collective output of the entire organism, then how can we become more intelligent and be better than what we are? How can we evolve to the next stage of our existence? Live a peaceful and healthy life which in theory will reduce the noise of our internal communications between the infinitely small entities comprising our own collective entity. If the collective output of our intelligence can truly believe and focus in living a peaceful and healthy life with pursuits on enlightenment then you must realize that it is similar to a government implementing policy to its people in order to live peacefully, healthy (limiting harmful foreign agents) and focus on enlightenment. Essentially, if we truly focus on a peaceful existence, the pursuit of bettering ourselves through continuous education, actually looking into ourselves within our thoughts and actually talking to our bodies, the cells, envisioning the infinitely small entities living within us that are collectively comprising our entity to instruct (command) them to live the same way you are currently focusing on (peaceful existence, the pursuit of bettering ourselves through continuous education and enlightenment) then in theory your collective entity will reduce the internal noise (conflicts, clutter) of the communication between our own cells making us collectively more intelligent, making you more intelligent. There can also be  other benefits such as prolonged life and better health from the inside out (from the quantum out). How is this all possible, again envision the Earth as a collective entity and a relatively tiny neutron, as per my scientific theories (time passes c times faster at the quantum scale), existing in your body that has reached an advance level of technology to communicate with other quantum particles and the living entities on them forming a larger collective community (organism) ultimately leading to the collective community that is you. A dictatorship will always fail due to rebellion, but if you are at peace with your people, your body, and instruct them to be at peace with themselves by internally focusing through thought on the reasoning the benefits such as the collective good of everyone, then again ultimately the entire system will advance. You will advance to the next stage of evolution. 
 

The first story is of a man who is a bartender at a pub I frequent on random occasion. At first glance many could dismiss him as an individual who’s pasted his prime and partied way too much in his life, which I wouldn’t doubt he has, but judging a book by its cover is never a wise course of action. What they would miss is perhaps the most genuine person I’ve ever come to know. He’s an open book which is actually a rarity in today’s society. Now like most, I’ve had my presumptions of this individual as I know he’s had presumptions about me and that perhaps the beauty of this relationship, and of this individual, is that he doesn’t easily judge others as he most likely knows the strife of being judged himself. Many would say this is the what a bartender should be and I agree so he is the right man for the job, but like most of us who walk into a bar, with friends or alone, and sit down to savor a cold one, we rarely see past the their role at the actual man, or woman. That behind the role there is a live breathing person who is just as human as you. The role is not the sum of a person as many can have many roles and this is where my story climaxes with this individual. He has other roles he plays, not superficially, but genuinely and it was one of these roles in the form of an act of kindness that consumed my thoughts for a day and occasionally still comes to mind. New Years Eve of last year I walked into this pub to have a quick drink in between events in my own life when I struck up a small conversation with this individual. He asked what I was doing for New Years Eve and I told him I was going to a banquet dinner and dance. Of course in turn I asked what he was doing. Jokingly I asked presumptively if he was going to party with his friends, of which he has many. He replied almost reluctantly, as if he was embarrassed, and said in varying volume that he was going to pay a visit to an elderly woman, a friend of the family, who would be alone at New Years. This I didn’t expect and it shocked me. I knew he was a good man, I just never knew how good. He continued to explain, after I questioned him further, that he didn’t know her very well but knew she was going to be alone so he was going to buy her flowers and spend some time with her. I was left in awe and embarrassed for myself. Here I was going to party selfishly, while he was going to live the true meaning of giving during the holiday season. In that moment I thought that there is true good in the world and it can come from the most unlikeliest of people. That New Years Eve he was a hero to that elderly woman and in my eyes.

The second story is about a child, a fourteen year old boy at the time, who I met while up north at a cottage. He was staying at the cottage next door with his foster family. This poor boy was a foster child who unfortunately had seen too much in this young life, but he was a remarkable kid. Every night, all the cottages would meet at the camp fire to roast marsh mellows and talk. One night, this kid sat beside me and we struck up a highly philosophical discussion on life regarding its trials and tribulations and he kept pace and at many occasions completely shocking me with his reasoning. We talked about everything including girls. Apparently his foster sister had crush on him, but he thought it was weird and wrong. I found it endearing and cute because of the unique dynamic of his foster family. We talked for hours and during that time he told me his story. Everyone has a story and until they tell you it, we never know the whys to how people become what they are. This kids story was intense. His parents were alcoholics with many domestic problems including abuse. One day his mom never came home. She abandoned him at the age of twelve and he had no idea what was happening for days until he finally went to a neighbours home for help. His story overwhelmed me, but I didn’t show it because I wanted him to keep talking. Everyone around the camp fire listened as we talked and some joined in. Now I’ve heard many depressing stories before, some could even consider my own story a bit of a tragedy so I could somewhat relate, but it was nothing compared to this kids story. What made this story remarkable was how intelligent he was, how deep and logical his thoughts ran and how positive he was. All that mixed with the underlining feeling in my chest of how anyone could leave this amazing kid alone was unbearable. He had so much potential it was intoxicating. I seriously thought of adopting him that night and for days after. The following days I talked to his foster parents and expressed my thoughts to get more information. They told me that his mother wanted him back, but that they were not willing to let him go and that he had a home with them forever. I felt they were truly good people who had already adopted several other children. For the two years he had been with this family, he had a stable life which was comforting plus he was doing extremely well in school. He wants to be a doctor and I’m certain he will be.

He was almost right! This is why theoretical physics exists. To find subtle errors in accepted scientific theories, correct and expand on it. This is my intent, because without Einstein I wouldn't have developed my theories which I strongly believe are correct in soo many ways and can be so easily tested and verified not like string theory which explains nothing because its too imaginary and not real to any actual physical context. He was also almost right with his gravity theory, but didn't realize and take into account that matter actually vibrates space-time (via invisible/visible light, heat and large magnetic waves) due to their mass-density and how free-standing vibrating sources (objects of different mass-densities) interact with each other (the "gravity effect").

This is why my theories are the true Grand Unification Theory (GUT) we've been all looking for decades. It unites Newtonian & Einsteinian physics with quantum physics by filling in the obvious truths that have been overlooked or ignored for years by the best of us. My intent is only to share this information so you can analyze it, test it, make your own conclusions and God be willing expand on it.

Here are some truths to note:
 

The economy and stock markets are emotionally driven and contract and expand in direct inverse proportion to the level of fear in the populous.  - So the solution is to reduce the level of fear in the populous. Market and sell good news. We make prophesies become true and we can also make them false predictions by controlling this aspect. The media is in a perfect position to market good news and actually change the level of economic fear in the populous.
 

Money is and has always has been an imaginary symbol of value. Need and scarcity drives the value of this imaginary thing. - What does this mean. The value of money itself is also inversely proportional to need and proportional to scarcity of needed things. So how can we use this fact to fix things or stop them from happening? Make money itself have value by locking down prices on all commodities and natural resources no matter the scarcity. This will push the need for the supplier to supply more of what is needed in order to make more money actually creating jobs in the process. How would we lock down prices? Actually we wouldn't, the government would. The government makes money from thin air and dictates our laws based on our needs at any given moment in time (history). If we continue to perpetuate fear and "predicted" economic doom, the government has the ability to pass laws that can literally stop our economy in its tracks and start up a new form of economy in order for its population to continue meeting its needs. Now some might not favour this, but do we have a choice? Yes we do! News agencies and their owners must stop spreading fear and focus on positive news! New agencies have over many years practiced censorship of content to meet their agendas and policies so it would be very easy for their policies to change to promote more good news than bad.
 

The Perfect System
Idealism is my strong suite and my major fault. I do envision a perfect economic system that would work in balance with our human nature and promote global peace by meeting our basic needs. It would be like this:
 

1 - Make money itself have value by locking down prices on all commodities and natural resources no matter the scarcity. This will force commodity and natural resource companies, under government oversight, to expand their production to meet demand and in the process creating jobs based on this demand.

2 - Mark product retail and wholesale values at government regulated profit margin derivatives based on the lock down cost of the manufactured product's natural resources and commodities. Everything from iPods to restaurant meal prices will be regulated within a specific profit margin based on the lock down cost of the materials and foods used to make these derivative products.

3 - Have government, or a central global economic administrative agency, via the Internet give out and administrer an amount of money or credits, say $26,000.00 (a number I calculated),  to every human on Earth annually in order to provide for human basic needs no matter if you're employed or not. This will also provide universal free education! Education on the problems of over population, over consumption, environment and philosophical ethics as it pertains to preceding and basic human behavior (like needs) would be mandatory, but also allowing for any choice in career path and anytime in an individuals life.

4 - Create a tax to recycle the amount of that $26,000, forcing everyone to spend it on shelter/housing, education and eventually cycling itself back to the locked down commodities and natural resources.

5 - Allow the capitalist nature to continue in the means of this new system allowing for the accumulation of personal wealth, regulated stock and investment markets based more on returned dividends than hype (emotion). Promote technological innovation, product creation and demand for jobs be central key drivers of this capitalistic portion of the economy.

6 - Implement increased taxing based on the amount of wealth you have.

7 - The preceding steps will, in theory, eliminate inflation.
 

To some this might sound like communism, but its not. It is a balanced mixture of capitalism, socialism and communism as no one system is perfect. Even this proposed system needs refining but I'm truly confident a system such as this will benefit mankind greatly. If you disagree then fine. You can continue with the current system we have for as long as we may have it.

It appears uncertainty isn't so uncertain at the quantum scale if you know what you're doing and minimize interference:
"Previously it was impossible to photograph electrons because of their extreme speediness, so scientists had to rely on more indirect methods. These methods could only measure the effect of an electron's movement, whereas the new technique can capture the entire event."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23336318/

This is an update to an older paper and is not my new paper (which I been working on) explaining the invariant mass of quantum particles as it pertains to my theory which is surprisingly simple.

The following image again nicely shows my theory that our Solar System is relatively equal to a Beryllium atom due to 4 gas giants (electrons) and 4 rock planets (neutrons).

Again my new paper will show the invariant mass of quantum particles as we currently measure it but pertaining to my theory.

www.newscientist.com/article/dn16439-smallest-known-planet-may-actually-be-earthmass.html

And more:

- University of Delaware
- Process Vision, Finland
- Cesar Millan Inc, Los Angeles, California
- Monroney Middle School - Media Center
- University Computing Centre, Zagreb, Croatia
- Envisional Ltd
- Opera Software, Oslo, Norway
- The Staubach Company, Texas
- Agilent Technologies, Palo Alto, California
- Vitro Corporation (former US defense contractor), Leesburg, Virginia
- Simcoe County District School Board, Barrie, Ontario
- Uprava Za Zajednicke Polsove Republickih Organa, Serbia And Montenegro
- Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

1st reply:

"You're good which makes this much more assuming. I "think" I have a theory and it's a pretty good one compared say to string theory. Why? Think for second my "theory" is correct, which the very simple numbers validate as much as you'd like to argue against it (which is a huge coincidence if anything at all). But just for sec think I'm right. Let your mind open to the possibility which I know you're capable of. So follow me on this. What would that mean? That clearly means there is a difference in scale between Solar System and Be atom. Scale pertains to the concept of "space". So there is a difference in space. Awesome! So what?! But electrons in are a hazy cloud around the nucleus. Why? Because they travel very, very fast. So you mean along with a difference in space there is a difference in the passage of time? Interesting. So there's a difference in space-time at the quantum scale in reference to our space-time frame of reference. Taking space-time as a pliable substance that can be distorted affecting size (space) and the passage of time then it can be considered a form of space-time density. So space-time density is "denser" at the quantum scale compared to the celestial scale. So a system that appears completely unrelated to our Solar System is not. It's all a matter of perception.

Now, not all gas giants are equal in mass. Based on Newtonian mathematics? First off, size is not indicative of mass and to think that is down right stupid. For example, compare a clay ball to a lead ball to see what I mean "tangibly". But lets go with the current mass of gas giants. Neptune and Uranus are similar in mass and significantly different than Jupiter and Saturn. Grant that so ok. But accounting for the possibility that our Solar System is member atom to a celestial molecule, you'd have to consider how molecular bonds work. You're adept in physics so you should know. Valence electrons are shared with other atoms. But how are they shared exactly? Do you know all the research pertaining molecular bonds? Their "charge" is shared between systems. Charge in my theory equates to mass. So perhaps...just maybe...Neptune and Uranus are in a mass sharing bond with another star system. Which means their masses are somehow split (and this is what I'm currently working on) between other star systems.

If I'm wrong kudos to you, but really doubt it. At least you can visual conceptualize my theory. Try doing that with string theory.

Yes I'm being sarcastic if you couldn't tell. I mean no malice. If you dish it, I'll make it pretty and give it back. Buddy I've dealt with all kinds (in and out of physics) and to me this becomes a sport in the psychology of others which I totally find amusing. We can reason each other to death, but honestly I don't have the time. To me this forum is a form of entertainment which I do at my leisure. I'm usually very busy. By applying a negative connotation to me by frivolously calling me a "crack-pot" is a cop-out. I expect better from you and the term is so relatively subjective it's unreal. Yes I've called others "crack-pot" too. No where in physics does it say implicitly that the atom is not relative to a star system. Am I going against the current paradigm? No. I make no claims of that. Even if I was I wouldn't care but the fact remains that I'm not. Give me some credit I'm a lot smarter than you may think. Yes now I've left myself opened to attack by anyone in offense to me gloating on my intellectual capacity. There's no need to reply regarding that and if you do it just proves my point. The fact is, Neils Bohr makes a the initial hypothesis and analogy that the atom and Solar System were alike. Yes, Mr Bohr was the god-father of quantum physics. So in physics there is room for such a theory.

I like you. From the stuff I've read I actually tend to agree with most of what you write. You have a powerful mind its obvious so put it to some powerful use...not on this forum. Forum's are for chumps. I mean in the real world.

BTW, if you read my paper rocky planets are neutrons not protons."

2nd reply:

"You're right. At the time I wrote my book, I wasn't sure where rock planets fit exactly, but my book is much older than my paper almost 2 years older. Since then, and it was so obvious I don't know why I missed it, by scaling rock planets mass by my mass equation S^2 it gave a clearer picture that rock planets where neutrons because the resulting numerical value was so small that it basically could be considered neutral. So my educated guess was that protons composed the construct of the Sun (star). In regards to neutrons, the layman could automatically assume that neutrons have no charge at all but that's not true. Research shows that neutrons have a very small charge small enough to be insignificant that it's omitted from most physics books.

Now, negative and positive are relative terms. Negative and positive objects only relate to each other through the force of attraction or repulsion. So if gas giants are electrons, two gas giants would repel each other. Let's skip over the exact why except to say they are very similar in characteristics (size and density). So repulsion is considered negative. Now get 4 protons (the Sun) or 1 proton (1/4 the Sun), and the gas giant and celestial proton attract. This interaction is considered "positive". Now my theory basically states that 1/4 Sun of the Sun is similar in mass to Jupiter, but because they'd attract eachother the 1/4 Sun celestial object has to be significantly different in size and density. It's all a matter of perception. The current mass of the Sun, 1/4 of it, is still much greater than Jupiter's. So what's the deal here? Note the Sun's mass was calculated using classic Newtonian mathematics. This isn't to say the math is wrong, but consider the event that would need to take place in order to split the Sun into 4 pieces. It would be immensely catastrophic which would lead to the following question, " Would the Sun's internal nuclear reactions stop due to such as destructive event?" I'd say they would at least temporarily making 1/4 pieces "cooled" in comparison and resemble the characteristics of a celestial proton and comparative to the mass of a gas giant. According to Einstein and E=mc^2, energy is mass so if there nuclear reactions stop does the perceived release of "mass" reduce? And how about the large volumes of of debris along with the 4 larger pieces. Now that portion is your "crackpottery" because that hypothesis is completely non-supported by any data because we haven't see a our Sun split into any pieces and most likely wouldn't live to analyze it anyway. I've been looking at supernova research in order to support this hypothesis."

In reply to another person:

"I'm not ignoring QM at all. I believe QM can be used to predict celestial mechanics by supper imposing it on Astrophysics and vice-versa. This is why I think this theory is very big. It is a fundamental unification theory coming out of left field.

The dwarf planets in the system are at different locations with in the Solar System but there is only 1 (Ceres) beyond Mars in its orbit around the Sun. The others are beyond Neptune. What does that mean? Basically why? What makes Ceres so special to be closer to the Sun? The fact the scientific community have classified these planetoids "sub" planets means they have a big enough difference between "full" planets that it was notable enough to even make Pluto a "sub" planet on official paper. So we're left with 4 rock planets, Ceres, Asteroid Belt, 4 gas giants and several dwarf planets and the Kuiper belt. 4 and 4 is what caught my eye and then I formulated this theory and consequent found a mass-charge relationship. I believe QM is very important."


 

2.7092520201259363621191188795264 ~ e = 2.71828 18284 59045 23536

Which is almost exactly the value of e without rounding off.

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 ju