The Voice is Upon Me

A Note About Science

2004-09-28T22:45:00.000-05:00

Lest any of you begin to think that this blog has anything at all to do with Science, I feel I should note my beliefs on Science...what it is, why it is so popular, why it is not truly useful (even though it appears to be).

What Science is: The predominant religion of our day.

Why Science is popular: Science requires no commitment of belief, no leap of faith. As such, a person who believes in Science is not required to give up his or her belief in any other faith. Furthermore, Science appears to rely on logic, and therefore presents answers to difficult questions in a manner that makes those answers difficult to disprove. People like to believe themselves to be "reasonable." Science touts reason as the basis of its "method."

Why Science is useless: Because the foundation of Science is the Scientific Method. The first step in the Scientific Method is to create a hypothesis--an educated guess. The following steps are designed to then prove the validity of that hypothesis. If the hypothesis is disproven, then a new hypothesis is generated based on the new information gained by means of that disproof. Sounds great, right? We have another name for this method: Trial and Error. This is not Deductive Logic, but Inductive Logic...imagined reasoning. In fact, the more closely one examines the Scientific Method, the more obvious it becomes that a different approach would yeild faster and more accurate results.

As I am the one saying that a different approach is needed, it follows that I should present an alternative. Here it is, the Logical Method:

Step 1: Identify the Problem. If you don't have a problem, you don't need a solution. Stated a little more colloquially, "If'n it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Step 2: Identify the Constants. In any given Problem, certain things can be held as Constant. In other words, we can assume that certain things are true based on past proof or direct observation.

Step 3: Identify the Variables. Whatever has not been previously proven or cannot be assumed Constant for one reason or another is a Variable.

Step 4: Isolate the Variables. This is the step in which we break down a large Problem into several smaller Problems. Each Variable must be isolated in order to establish the rules that govern that Variable.

Step 5: Reconcile the Variables. Once the rules governing a Variable have been established (proven), that Variable becomes a Constant in the larger Problem. When all Variables have been eliminated in this fashion, the Problem has become a collection of Constants--a cohesive Theory, very likely a Law. Some problems may reach satisfactory Solution without total reconciliation, and thus generate only Theory. Only when all the Variables have been totally reconciled can a Problem generate a Law.

That, my friends, is Deductive Logic. Scientists waste too much time guessing, often making guesses at "problems" that NEED no solutions or creating "theories" that can never be proven as "laws."

Oopsie

2004-09-25T01:16:00.000-05:00

The Voice Speaks Again on Truth

2004-09-21T13:56:00.000-05:00

Well, now that we've started to get off on a tangent about the nature of Truth, I want to redirect things within this blog back to the original topic at hand: The Nature of the Universe.

So far, we have covered Time, Space, and Matter. These are three of the fundamental concepts that the order of Scientists known as Physicists study. Their attemtps to establish laws governing these concepts has failed because they failed to understand the Truth. There is no law governing these things because these things are the laws that govern other things. In addition to these "physical" laws, we have started to discuss Balance and Perspective, both laws unto themselves. The ultimate goal of this site is to find the lowest common denominators of life, the universe and everything. Understanding of the basics leads to understanding of more complex Truths.

Since I am no Scientist, I can state my unproven theories as law without any fear that they will lose credibility. These things need no proof--everyone knows them, but no one has ever stated them directly before. Perhaps you all might have some suggestions for rephrasing them? Here's my suggested phrasing of the Basic Laws, as far as we've discussed them:

The Law of Balance: Polar opposites define a spectrum of existence, and cannot exist without each other.

The Law of Time: Everything changes.

The Law of Matter and Space: All things are, in fact, one thing.

The Law of Perspective: No one perspective can ever define a complete Truth.

Matter and Space

2004-09-19T17:24:00.000-05:00

The best way to understand Matter is to first understand Space. I'm not talking about the vast emptiness beyond the atmosphere. I'm talking about total emptiness--the kind of space you would find in between the electron and nucleus in the conventional model of the atom. If you can wrap your mind around that concept, extend it to its logical utmost. Space is the one thing that permeates everything. No amount of Matter exists that does not contain space, and no part of space is separated from another part of space by Matter. Space itself surrounds and permeates everything.

This leads me to an interesting conclusion about Matter. In particular, I would like to discuss the atom because it is a commonly known unit of matter--the smallest unit we have been able to see through magnification. "What about the electron microscope?" you ask. Well, the term is something of a misnomer. If you look at electron microscope images, what you see is the so-called "electron shell" of an atom. The image produced by the microscope at maximum magnification is a fuzzy ball. Scientists looking at the fuzzy ball drew their own conclusions about what they were seeing, based on the mathematical models constructed long before the ball could be seen. So, in fact, the smallest unit of Matter that can be observed is the atom. But the question "what is an atom made of?" is still unanswered. The answers given by science to date are THEORY, nothing more. I have a different theory to present.

My theory is that the atom is not, in fact, seperate from Space, but rather is made of Space. More precisely, matter in its smallest form (which may or may not be smaller than an atom) is nothing more than a twist in Space--a twist caused by Time. To make this easier to imagine, we must use a symbolic template. Imagine that Space is not emptiness, but is rather a fluid of even density, spanning the entire breadth of existence in all directions. The introduction of Time creates movement in the fluid--currents, if you will. Waveforms, science calls them. As these currents cross and collide, eddies occur. Imagine one of these eddies to be formed in the shape of a whirlpool. The open end of the whirlpool could be considered the "positive" charge of the atom, where the "negative" charge would be the point at the bottom. But this whirlpool is not an eddy in a flat current like that of a river. It rotates not only around its vertical center, but also around two other axes--it is a three-dimensional structure. End result: it looks like a fuzzy ball, yet presents the "positive" and "negative" charges required by mathematical models.

My model has one particular advantage over the conventional atomic model. It provides a convenient way to explain Light, and why Light behaves like a particle and like a waveform. Light is the result of one of these eddies being limited to one axis of rotation--it spreads out in a straight line, the force of its rotation thrusting it through space like the rotational thrust inside a jet engine. Result: maximum speed through minimal dynamics. Light is, in fact, a defining line between Space and Matter--the top end of the Matter spectrum, to be specific. So what's the bottom end? Quasi-particles. Quarks. Eddies that have not yet completed forming into matter.

It is crucial to note the overall conclusion that my theory presents. If all Matter is, in fact, made of Space, and all Space is connected to the rest of Space, then everything--Space and Matter alike--is made of the same thing. Everything is Nothing. Remarkably zen, isn't it?

Perspective

2004-09-15T19:32:00.000-05:00

It's an amazing thing, Perspective. How two people can see the same event, and tell two different stories about what happened. Niether are wrong, because that is what they saw. Everything is measured by a persons perspective and each person's perspective is unique to them. One persons perspective on a conversation could end a friendship, while the other can see it as an oppertunity to get closer.

Perspective is a dangerous thing. If one isn't wary of it and how other's perspective is, they can lose friends, family and even them self. I remember the old saying, Put's the world in perspective. But what does that mean? Since perspective is unique, how can you make such a statement? How I see the world will always be different than the way you see the world. If I don't take that in to consideration, I may (and probibly will) offend you, and vice versa.

Not to mention Perspective is ever changing. How I react to something one day may never be how I react to it another. You never can phrase things the same way twice. Everytime you see or do something, it will be different.

I guess what I am saying is that perspective is always unique and changes everyday. We all must be wary of it, else it bites us in the ass.

Time

2004-09-06T02:06:00.000-05:00

The second universal 'truth' is Time. Universally, Time is incremented--counted. But also universal is the concept that these increments are inadequate to describe time. Examples:

Time flies when you're having fun
Minutes feel like hours/Hours feel like minutes
Time is running out

Ultimately, expressions such as these illustrate the simple truth about Time: it is subjective. There is no constant rate at which Time passes. Because Time is marked by observation of environmental changes, it is subject entirely to the perspective of the observer. We coordinate our endeavors by marking environmental changes that are universally observed (eg: 'we'll meet when the sun reaches its highest point in the sky'), but the amount of subjective time that passes between those universally observed markers is different for each observer.

What I'm saying is that each of us traverses his or her own individual timeline, making observations and acting on those observations independently of everyone else. The universally observed events that we cling to and converse about--the temporal markers--are points at which our respective realities cross paths.

Because Time is subjective, it is NOT linear. The past and the future can (and often do) cross paths with the present. The effects of these crossings are observable, but often not easily explained. Thus, we develop explanations for them--memories, premonitions, ghosts, and numerous other phenomena may at times fall into this category. Time travel, both to the past and the future, is not only possible, but likely already taking place by various means.

The key to understanding how this (scientifically impossible) phenomenon can be possible is first understanding that the subjective nature of Time refutes many scientific theories--for example, the theory that the speed of light is constant and represents the fastest rate at which an object can move through space. How can any speed be constant if the very concept of speed relies on Time, which is not constant? [Note: Light and Space I will comment on in another entry...]

To sum up a long-winded entry: The passage of Time is a matter of perspective. Therefore, anything defined (in whole or in part) by Time is subject to that perspective. Put simply, Time is movement--change in any form.

Balance

2004-09-05T22:49:00.000-05:00

The first and most basic of the universal concepts is balance. Expressions of this concept almost always consist of the juxtaposition of polar opposites. I have listed my examples in order from the most accurate description (in my humble opinion) to the least:

Yin and Yang
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction
Heaven and Hell

It can be universally said that everything in the known universe has a polar opposite. Even existence itself is opposed by non-existence. The unspoken corralary present in all expressions of this universal balance principle is that the polar opposites define a scale, and that what exists on the scale between the opposites is in some degree made up of both.

The principle of Balance is the foundation of many other concepts, and understanding of it is key to understanding the world we live in. Unfortunately, it cannot be truly explained--only observed. Accurate observation is paramount, but difficult. Many things are commonly held as opposites, when in reality they are not. The most glaring example is the pairing of Life and Death. Life is, in fact, the opposite of Unlife (inanimate objects). Death is the opposite of Birth. The confusion that leads to the pairing of Life and Death is in part due to the overlap in the two scales. A dead body is (mostly) inanimate. Birth (or, perhaps more accurately, conception) is the beginning of Life. The two scales are closely related to each other, and are experienced simultaneously within a lifetime. But the distinction between them, however small, is absolutely critical to the understanding of Balance.

The Voice Speaks On The Truth

2004-09-05T21:55:00.000-05:00

Certain concepts can be held as universally 'true.' These appear in every culture, every religion, every science, every system of thought. They can be held as universally 'true' because literally everyone agrees on the truth of them. But for some reason, no one can agree on how to express these concepts. This is my attempt to express them. Agree or don't. Comment or don't. I feel no need for your affirmations and fear nothing from your denials. The wisdom imparted here comes not from me, but from something bigger than me. The Voice speaks through me, not from me.