How Should Humanity Steer the Future? by Paul N Butler

Dear John,

It is true that some laws were enacted with the supposed purpose of creating racial and other equality outcomes in the country in the 1960's, but one only has to look at the actual outcomes generated to see that full social and economic equality has not yet resulted from those and other later laws and various court decisions, etc. Not only have blacks and women not achieved such equality with whites and men respectively, but now even whites have been divided into a small super-rich class that possesses most of the country's wealth and most everyone else (regardless of race or gender) either in or rapidly approaching poverty. The rich have financially drained the government of funds and now desires to rob those who have paid into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds during their working years of their benefits so they can also drain those resources. The desire is also to end or at least greatly cut back social welfare programs such as food stamps and Medicaid, etc. that the working poor and those who are poor because they can't even find employment depend on for subsistence. The sixties was also the time of the court case that legalized the murder of unborn children that has resulted in the murder of about 1.5 million such children per year in the United States since then or about 1/3 of all the children that would have been born there if they had not been killed. This is barbaric social behavior. It was also the time of the heterosexual revolution that has resulted in a breakdown of man's family structure so that a large percentage of the children that have been born were born into single parent families in which the parents must work full time often at low wages so the parent in such a family has neither the time nor financial resources to properly raise the children. The result is great suffering for both such parents and also their children. Of course, many 2 parent families are faced with lack of financial resources to adequately take care of their children due to lack of employment or employment at such low pay that they can't cover all their expenses. In some cases they can get adequate resources with both parents working full time, but then they do not have adequate time to devote to taking proper care of their children. All these things and others, such as dysfunctional public school systems and lack of other support systems, etc. have resulted in a great degeneration of man's social structure. The sixties was also the time of court decisions that have greatly restricted religious freedom in the country especially for Christians. This has happened even though the Constitution of the United States says that the government is not to restrict the free exercise of religion. The problem is that the laws that man makes do not generate the outcomes. It is the people who must implement them and carry them out or they are of no use. When the people refuse to carry out the laws that could work for their benefit and instead implement practices that are destructive to their wellbeing the resulting outcomes are always negative. Those who have lived through this time period have seen this fact play out before their eyes, if they have not blinded themselves to it for some reason.

I have noticed in many of the current papers on this site that there is a great desire to reach a condition in which all people live together in love for one another in peace with each other helping each other to achieve a good life for all. This is a good goal. The general consensus seems to be that if you give everyone adequate resources, people will stop being bad to each other and we will all live happily together. The problem with this concept is that it doesn't work. It assumes that man is inherently good, but this is not true. This can be easily seen by looking at the present condition of the world. It can be easily seen that most of the above mentioned problems are caused by a relatively few extremely rich people. These people have all of the resources that they could ever possibly use many times over, so if providing resources to them would cause them to be good, they could solve all of the lack of resource problems of the others and still have much left over for themselves, but even though they possess all of these resources, they still want more even if they have to rob it from others to get it. Of course they pay to get laws made that give them the ability to take resources from others, so they would say that they are not doing anything against the law and are thus not robbing anyone. That is why in my paper I point out that the only group of people that I have found that have truly overcome this natural greed and hunger for power and control over others and many other faults that are built into man's structure are those who I call true Christians as explained in my paper. The only logical explanation that I can find for this ability is that God works through them to cause them to do that which is good and to not do that which is bad. On the other hand, the things mentioned above and many other such practices that have been adopted by society during the period mentioned show the negative effects that result when the number of such true Christians and the positive effects that they generate greatly decreases. Of course, there are many other things that happened during the 1960's some good and some bad, but I have mentioned some of the main points that have greatly negatively affected man's social structure as a whole and the lives of millions of individuals within that structure. To cover all such things would require the writing of many books, which of course was well beyond the scope of the papers in this contest. The negative effects mentioned above that started in the 1960's were not just restricted to only affecting that period, but have continued since then to the present. They have also encouraged man to make other bad decisions. When a bad precedent is established, it tends to lead to the establishment of other bad decisions. I hope this helps.

Sincerely,

Paul B.

Dear Joe,

I am sorry that you did not understand a word of my paper, but then I did not expect many to fully understand all of it because much of it goes well beyond man's current level of development unless my previous papers have been read and understood and some of it covers concepts in more depth that I had not previously mentioned or had only been mentioned without as much detail. My guess is that its full significance will not be grasped by most and likely not any of the judges either because some of the concepts presented cannot be demonstrated by man's current limited capabilities although there is a limited sector of man's scientific community that currently works on development of some of the concepts presented and can appreciate the presentation of those parts. My guess is that the judges are not likely members of that group, however. I would not, therefore, expect a high score, but that is not my purpose anyway.

If it is impossible for light to move because it does not have a surface and all surfaces move at the speed of light then it follows that it is also impossible for surfaces to move. How then can sub-surfaces travel or move at a speed less than not moving? Moreover, if an object's surface actually does move at a speed called the speed of light and its subsurface or inside moves at a lesser speed, wouldn't its faster moving surface leave its slower moving sub-surface behind? Of course, if it did, the outside of its sub-surface would become its new surface and would immediately start to travel at the speed of light and would then again leave its slower moving sub-surface behind. This would continue leaving a multitude of smaller and smaller surfaces following each other at the speed of light until only a surface was left that was so small that it could not contain a sub-surface, if that was possible.

In your paper (on page 4, paragraphs 2 starting with "The apparent" and 3 starting with "The physicists") you say that if an object is in the dark its surface travels at a speed that is less than the speed of light, but if it is in the light it travels at the speed of light. It would seem that a way to test this concept would be to shoot 2 balls at as close to the same time as you can in the same direction at a speed that would allow you to continue to observe them, with a light shining on each one of them so that they would both be traveling at the speed of light and then while they are traveling you would turn off the light that is shining on one of them, but leave the light shining on the other one on. The one without the light shining on it would travel at a speed less than the speed of light while the one with the light shining on it would continue to travel at the speed of light. After a few seconds you would turn the light back on so that the other ball would once more be illuminated. Since the ball that was continuously illuminated during its total travel would have continuously traveled at the speed of light while the other ball would have traveled at a slower speed when it was not illuminated, it would be expected that the continuously illuminated ball would be ahead of the other ball when the light was turned back on to once more shine on that other ball.

If we observe 2 cars traveling in the same direction down a road and their surfaces both travel at the speed of light the distance between the cars would have to remain the same because if the rear car approached the front car either it would have to travel at greater than the speed of light or the front car would have to travel at less than the speed of light. We commonly observe the distance between cars traveling down the road in the same direction vary. How do you explain this observation when both cars are continuously illuminated during their travel and can be continuously observed?

I ask these things to get a greater understanding of your theory to discern its potential validity.

Sincerely,

Paul B.

Dear Joe,

In your first comment of the last 2 comments, once the tiny surface was created and began to travel at the speed of light wouldn't it continue to travel at the speed of light and thus continue to exist as long as it was illuminated by external light? Do you believe that matter (sub-atomic) particles possess a surface all the time or only that one is generated by a collision, but they don't normally possess a surface? If they don't have a surface normally, what is actually colliding?

In your last comment, it would seem to me that if your skin is moving in some direction at the speed of light and the inside of your body (the sub-surface) is moving in the same direction, but at a speed that is less than the speed of light either your skin would increase the speed of your insides to equal the speed of light so that your insides would stay inside of you (if it is strong enough to do so) or your skin would break and continue to travel at the speed of light away from your slower moving insides. If that is not the case, please tell me how the slower moving insides can remain inside the faster moving outside.

Sincerely,

Paul B.

Dear Georgina,

I thought it useful to go into adequate detail to transfer to the reader that might not be familiar with the structure of the Christian church the particular members that I was referring to. I have found that the word sermon is usually used today in one of two ways. Those in the church think of it as a discourse given by a respected higher level or more advanced member of the church to those who are of lower positions to pass on knowledge of God's word to them to help them to learn and advance to higher levels of understanding. Those who do not believe in God usually intend a negative connotation by its use. Which are you? I know that some in the scientific community think that any mention of the possibility of the existence of God is a heresy against science, but I do not hold to blind faith in that belief. I believe that all things should be open to scientific study and that it is foolish to exclude any possibility from investigation. When I was young I was brought up to believe in God, but I became an agnostic because I prayed to God to give me something important to me and although I had been told that I could pray to God and he would answer my prayer, I did not get what I asked for. I did not become an atheist because I did not think this was adequate proof that God did not exist because he might have had a good reason for not giving me my request that I did not understand, so I withheld judgment until I had more information. I had always desired to know how the world works and so I turned to science for that purpose. At that time cosmology was ruled by the steady state universe theory and in Biology a cell was a bag filled with cytoplasm and protoplasm that contained some type of life force. It was, therefore, easy to believe that the universe always existed and that evolution could explain all the various life forms on earth. I, therefore, tended to lean in that direction. Later it became apparent that the universe had a beginning and with the understanding of DNA and other highly complex structures in living creatures evolution became a much less practical likely possibility because the universe outside of living creatures is designed to break down complex organizations and high potential energy structures into their lowest common denominators as a part of entropy. The probability that all of such structures necessary to make even a simple living creature would all somehow be made and come together in one place within a short enough time period that at least some of them would not be destroyed by entropy became more and more an unreasonable blind faith type of belief. Another problem with evolution that no one seemed to think about was that if I assumed a short enough time period for each new positive evolutionary advance to occur to be able to start with one living creature and end up with all of the different creatures that exist today plus all of the reported variations that have gone extinct we should today be seeing many such changes happening every year because of the multitude of each type of all of the creatures in existence at present. As an example, the same principle applies to atomic decay. If you look at a single atom of an isotope that has a half-life of one thousand years, you would on the average have to wait one thousand years to have a reasonable chance to see it break down, but if you look at one thousand such atoms at the same time you might expect to see a decay in one year, etc. In the same way, the more living creatures that exist, the more DNA transcription errors that would happen, so the more evolutionary advancements would be expected to occur in a given time period. These things caused me to lean more toward the belief that it was likely that God exists, but I still withheld judgment. When I later gained access to the information that all things are composed of motions, it became apparent that there were at least five dimensions and symmetry made it likely that there would be eight dimensions. Being an agnostic at that time I allowed my wife to take our children to church services because I reasoned that if there was no God it would make no difference in the long run since we would all die and go into nothingness anyway, but if there is a God maybe they would be saved or at least they could make an informed decision based on all of the information available on both sides. It is interesting that you mention the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ because one day after my wife left for services I decided that it would be good to look at the scriptures to see what they actually said about God as I had not yet looked there to see if it made any sense. Because I wanted to just take a short look at that time, I decided to start at the end because I have found that in men's books you can often get a good idea of what a book is about that way, so I opened it up to the book of Revelation of Jesus Christ and read it. I noticed that it talked about man being given power over the fourth part of the earth, so the earth was the first four dimensions. It also talked about three heavens, one ruled by living creatures called powers, another ruled by principalities, and the other one ruled by angels and some description of how they worked and the parts each one played in Gods works was also described. At this point I saw that this explained seven of the eight dimensions and included information that I had come to understand and also many things that I had not yet considered. Later I read in another place that when Jesus ascended to God the Father after his resurrection he ascended to a place high above the highest heaven, which explained the eighth dimension.

On top of all of this, when I started to read the scriptures at the beginning in Genesis I found that it starts this way: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. It starts out with the creation of two basic structures, the heaven and the earth. Although the heaven is divided into three heavens as described above, no detailed description of it is given here. It is just mentioned that it was created and then the description shifts to the structure of the earth. It is described as a structure that can contain things and forms or shapes, but it is empty in the beginning. It can be looked at as a dimensional system without any entities in it. Its structure contains a deep or waters that has a face or surface that is dark at that time. God's first action was to add or introduce motion to that surface. This is a perfect match for the introduction of sub-energy into the universe. Next God added light, which would signify adding fourth dimensional motion to some of the sub-energy particles. Separating the light from the darkness would match expansion from a very small bright universe into a universe with empty dark space in it. All these things and more were written about two thousand years ago in the case of the New Testament and much longer than that for the Old Testament. In both cases man had no way to understand the meanings of these things at that time, so man could not have been the source of the scriptures. Man has only obtained the observational information that would allow the reasonable understanding that all things are composed of motions in the last hundred years and it has mostly been ignored by man to this date, which is why I am bringing it to attention at this time. As I have read the rest of the scriptures I have found the provision of much such scientific information in various fields. The problem is that much of it has not been understood and has, therefore, been ignored. In the light of all this evidence I now have come to the conclusion that God does exist and has provided the scriptures to us and has also encoded much information in the structure of the universe to tell us about him and what his purpose is for creating this universe. If you thought my paper was like a sermon you probably are sure to think this comment is one also, but I thought you might be interested in knowing some of the things that I went through over a period of over twenty two years of research to come to the conclusion that I did. Much of the prophesy in the scriptures has already been fulfilled and some is being fulfilled at this time, so yes I believe that it will all come to pass at the proper times for each prophesy to be fulfilled.

I did not mention tapping into the brains of other creatures only in reference to man someday gaining that ability. I was also talking about the ability of any other living beings that possess fifth vector technology or above to also use it in this way on man or any other beings that exist below their level of technology. Those who could do this would include any creatures in the earth that possess fifth vector technology, the powers in the fifth vector, the principalities in the sixth vector, the angels in the seventh vector, and God in the eighth vector. Those in each higher vector could have complete control over all those in lower vectors, so you can see that man is not in a good position if he could only trust in his abilities to protect himself. It is good for us that God has an interest in our survival and wellbeing because he can control all the rest either directly or by using others. I would have made that clearer if I had more room in the paper, but I ran out of space before I got that far. I had planned to include an idea as to how a fifth vector civilization might expand to new populated worlds and some information about the other structural levels, but I did not have room in my paper. I suppose that I could include that in a comment if anyone is interested. The best way for it to work would be like two or more equally sharing a mind together, but because of the nature of some creatures that would not always be possible. You are right that it would not be right to manipulate others for your own gain and at their expense which is why man won't be given that ability any time soon.

Thank you, I always try to look at all things from all perspectives as much as possible.

Sincerely,

Paul B.

Dear Joe,

I was not thinking that the skin would travel faster than the speed of light, but that the slower moving insides would not be able to keep up with the skin and would, therefore, fall behind the skin. I thought that you were saying that surfaces only travel at the speed of light if they are illuminated. Internal arteries would not be illuminated would they? If not, could they still travel at the speed of light?

Where do all those billions of particles come from?

I have found that it is usually best to start with a simple example and then once you get that to work you can progress gradually to more complex structures, so It might be easier to looking at a simpler object such as a solid metal ball first because it only has one surface and one homogenous inside sub-surface. If the surface of the ball is traveling away from you at the speed of light and the inside (sub-surface) of the ball is traveling away from you at some slower speed, how can the inside sub-surface of the ball keep up with and stay inside the surface without its speed increasing to the speed of light?

You are doing well. It is good to propose a hypothesis and then test it to see if it conforms to observed reality and then modify it if it doesn't do so. This process must be repeated until your model hypothesis matches observed reality. Let's test the possibility that surfaces move at the speed of light and sub-surfaces travel at some slower speed, but only inwardly toward the center. If the surface of the ball is traveling away from you at the speed of light and the inside of the ball is traveling toward the center point of the ball at some slower speed the front part of the sub-surface (the part that is the farthest from you) could easily travel in the direction that is opposite to the direction of the surface until it reached the center of the ball. It would then have to reverse its direction and try to stay at the center of the ball, but it would get farther away from the center point because the center point would be traveling at the speed of light away from you because the center point is the point that is equal distant from all points on the surface of the ball and the surface is traveling at the speed of light, therefore, the center point would also be traveling away from you at the speed of light while even though the front part of the sub-surface would reverse its direction, so that it was traveling in the same direction as the surface it would be traveling at a speed slower than the speed of light, so it could not keep itself at the center of the ball, but would be left behind by the faster moving center. It would still be traveling in the direction away from you, but because it was traveling slower than the surface it would eventually either have to have its speed increased to the speed of light by being pushed by the back side of the faster moving surface or it would break through the back side of the surface and be left behind by the faster moving surface. The part of the sub-surface that was initially at the center point would immediately increase its speed from zero to some speed less that the speed of light in the direction away from you, but it could not keep itself at the center point because its speed would be slower than that of the center point. The part of the sub-surface that was initially on the side of the center point toward you would travel at some speed less than the speed of light toward the center point, but would never reach it because the center point would be traveling away from it at the faster speed of light. All of the sub-surface would, therefore, either need to have its speed increased to the speed of light by being pushed by the back side of the surface (the side toward you) or it would break through that side of the surface and be left behind by it.

In your last comment you propose that the sub-surface could move either toward or away from the center point, but that would not keep the sub-surface from being left behind by the surface because even if the front part of the sub-surface started out traveling forward away from you at some speed less than the speed of light, the faster moving center point would catch up to it and leave it behind. The other parts of the sub-surface would behave as described above. The sub-atomic particle concepts sound interesting to look at, but I think it would be best to stick with the simple large scale object first because it can be directly tested more easily. When that part is working, then more advanced concepts can be looked at.

Dear Georgina,

You are welcome. I have found that giving adequate information can often eliminate or at least minimize misunderstandings. No offense taken. What has your experience been listening to sermons. If it was bad, I hope mine were different. I tried to not make it any longer than necessary to show the flow of my progression of thought over time. As an example, I stopped with the production of light in Genesis: 1 and didn't cover the next part where God describes the production of matter and the different structural sublevels even though I think that is really interesting because man on this planet does not currently know of their existence. I hope you noticed that the earth is not just this planet, but it includes everything that man currently considers to be the complete universe plus all the structural sublevels that can be reached by control of the fifth vector motion, etc. The world is constructed like a cage within a cage within a cage, etc. You are locked in one cage until you have been made ready to proceed and then the key is given to open it up to the next larger cage, which contains more things to learn before you are given the key to open it up to the next larger cage, etc. It is very hierarchical in structure. There, that is a very short sermon for you.

Sincerely,

Paul B.

Dear Joe,

It appears to me that you make many assumptions and treat them as facts without giving any logical reason for them. Of course, you may have valid reasons for them and have just not given them yet, so I will point out a few and you can give me your basis for them.

1. "The real Universe must consist only of real light and real matter". It seems to me that other things could exist. As an example fields could be composed of something other than matter and light, etc.

2. "Real light does not have a surface." It seems to me that the wave front in the wave theory of light could be considered a surface. In the photon particle theory the photon could have a surface. Even in the structural motion theory man does not currently have the ability to determine whether the structural points of the motions involved have surfaces or not.

3. "Real matter does have a surface and a sub-surface." Man's current theories treat matter particles as point objects. Such objects would not have a surface. Point particles could not have a sub-surface. In the structural motion theory an energy photon travels in a three dimensional enclosed path to create a matter particle. That path is not a true surface because the photon's motion's structural points are each at most only at one point at a time as they trace out their cyclical motion paths. The sub-energy motion flow patterns could possibly be considered a type of sub-surface in that it exists within the matter particle, but a sub-surface without a true surface would not make sense to many.

4. "Because real matter has a surface, it must always be in motion." In man's current theories a matter particle could conceivably be at rest and large scale objects can be either at rest or in motion in reference to other objects. In the structural motion theory, all matter particles are composed of motions, so if the motions are all stopped the matter ceases to exist, but if you are talking about a large scale surface like that on a solid wooden ball, the motion of the surface of the ball in three dimensional space could either be zero or some positive motion level.

5. "That motion can only be of an absolute constant speed." At least on the surface this does not seem to make sense because if all matter was traveling at the absolute speed, one matter object could not change its position relative to any other matter object traveling in the same direction because to do so would require it to travel at a different speed, so that it could catch up to that object by going faster or so that the other object could catch up to it by going slower, etc. In the real universe that we can observe matter objects traveling in the same direction can change positions relative to each other. As an example, one car can pass another one when they are both traveling in the same direction down a road. How can they both be traveling at the same ultimate speed?

6. "Material surface can only speed through inert light." In the real universe light traveling through empty space always does appear to travel at the same speed. If all light is standing still, when you turn on an electric light, it might generate light, but that light could not leave the place of its origin and travel out in all directions, because it could not move.

7. "Material sub-surface must only speed at an inconsistent speed." We have already talked about this and you have not provided me with an explanation of how the sub-surface of a solid wooden ball could travel at a velocity less than the speed of light and not be left behind by its surface if its surface travels at the speed of light.

8. "The real Universe is infinite." Man has not been able to determine whether the universe is infinite or not. What is your evidence that it is?

9. "This means that there must be an infinite amount of real stationary light in the real Universe. This also means that there must be an infinite amount of real matter in the real Universe." This is also not evident from the information that you have provided to me. It seems entirely possible that an infinite universe containing infinite space could have in it just one particle of matter or one photon of energy somewhere in that space or any other finite number for that matter. If one aspect of the universe is infinite it does not follow that all other aspects must also be infinite. Some theories consider that space is somehow brought into existence as matter or energy expands, but this is not the only possibility. Space could have been made first and then sub-energy, energy, and matter could have been added to it later, as an example. How do you view this concept?

10. "After all, you have to be touching something at all times. Your surface and the surface of whatever you are touching have to be traveling at the same constant speed." It would seem that an object such as a solid wooden ball could be located out in space such that it would not be touching any other matter. It is also not true that your surface and the surface of whatever you are touching have to be traveling at the same speed. As an example, If you hold a solid wooden ball in your hand and lift your hand above your shoulder and then let the ball roll up your arm toward your shoulder it is continually touching you, but it is traveling at some speed up your arm and you and your arm are not traveling in that way at that speed because if they were the ball and your arm would both be traveling in the same direction at the same speed and it would therefore not be able to roll up your arm.

11. "Your sub-surface and the sub-surface of whatever you are touching has to be traveling at an inconsistent speed in order for you and whatever you are touching to be observed as being apparently different." This does not seem to make sense because in most cases we do not see or observe the sub-surface of things, but only see their surfaces. We usually observe things to be apparently different by observations of differing surface shape, texture, color, and pattern structure, etc. Motion can play a part, but it is usually relative motions of the surfaces involved.

We do both agree that the real universe exists here and now.

I base my postulated universe on observed reality. My point is that your postulated universe seems to be in contradiction to observed reality (not just in areas that cannot be directly observed, but also in things that we observe around us all the time in the above mentioned ways). It could be, however, that you can explain the above apparent inconsistencies with observed observations and you may have a logical argument for the necessity for some of your concepts to be the way that you present them, so I wait for your explanation of them, as I may just not be understanding them due to lack of details that you can provide to me.