How Should Humanity Steer the Future? by Paul N Butler

Joe Fisher

I made a mistake with the visible - invisible comment. Surfaces move because they have a surface. Light does not move because it does not have a surface. A surface can be internal or external. For instance: The exterior surface of the cyclotron and the interior surface of the cyclotron can only travel at the constant "speed" of light. The sub-atomic particles that are sent through the sub-surface of the cyclotron move at an inconsistent speed that is less than the constant "speed" of light. When the sub-atomic particles collide, they must create a tiny surface that then causes a spark. This tiny surface then is able to briefly travel at the constant "speed" of light. Once the tiny surface fails to maintain the constant "speed" of light, the light disappears.

I hope this answers your question.

Joe

Joe Fisher

The constant 'speed" of light cannot be exceeded, and that is why a surface cannot move away from an attached sub-surface. I only use the term "speed" of light because I do not want to enter the abstract maze that Newton entered into and have to try explaining inertia and acceleration. An object is never at rest. Whether an object is microscopic or macroscopic, its surface must only be able to travel at the "speed" of light because that is the only speed that cannot be exceeded. The fact that the sub-surface below your skin is moving at an inconsistent speed less than the constant "speed" of light and the sub-surface of a crocodile obviously differs from yours only means that your mode of movement is different, but not the "speed" of light that you are both moving at.

Joe

Paul Butler

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.

Joe Fisher

Dear Paul B,

Obviously, the sub-surface of your insides must be traveling at a slower rate of speed than your surface skin is traveling at. Your surface skin must be traveling at a speed that cannot be exceeded, therefore it cannot peel away. A layer of sub-surface insides are attached to your surface skin. Then comes the surfaces of your arteries and veins which have to be traveling at the maximum speed allowed. Those surfaces are attached to sub-surfaces that have to be moving at a rate of speed less than that of a surface. Blood has to be pumped around your system in order to increase its speed closer to the maximum speed of the surface allowed, but not to exceed it.

As for the speed of a colliding sub-atomic particle in a cyclotron, I do not think an actual collision takes place. I think that a surface and a subsurface are formed. I do not believe that only two sub-atomic particles are involved. I think that there may be as many as several billion sub-atomic particles that are brought together and form the same sort of surface that is formed naturally and exposed to exist by flashlight, spotlight, and searchlights operating in the dark.

Thank you for posing such intriguing questions.

With the highest of regards,

Joe Fisher

Eureka! The surface can travel in any direction. The sub-surface can only attempt to travel inwardly!

Thank you Mr. Butler and God Bless you for your terrific questioning.

Joe Fisher

Eureka correction. The sub-surface can only move inwardly or outwardly. Only the sub-surface can expand or contract. There must be trillions of naturally formed sub-atomic particles everywhere. A considerable number of them must be smaller than the Higgs-Bosun. A fabricated vacuum only gets rid of air, the natural sub-atomic particles remain. As each particle has a tiny surface and sub-surface all of them travel at the "speed" of light. When the opposing bursts of energy are fired through a cyclotron, they must cause the sub-atomic particles to start to congregate closer together. They form a tiny critical mass that then causes a spark. The spark does not have a surface and the surface the spark adheres to promptly collapses and the cloud of naturally formed sub-atomic particles disperses and the spark goes out.

Paul Butler

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.

Georgina Woodward

Paul, I only meant what I said drawing on my own experience of listening to sermons, no offense intended. Thank you for putting your essay in context by explaining how you have put together the many ideas over the years. Georgina

Paul Butler

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.

[deleted]

Paul,

The real Universe must consist only of real light and real matter. Real light does not have a surface; therefore, real light must always be stationary. Real matter does have a surface and a sub-surface. Because real matter has a surface, it must always be in motion. That motion can only be of an absolute constant speed. I used the term "speed" of light to make it easier for me to explain. Now I will simply state: all real matter moves at a real constant speed. Material surface can only speed through inert light. Material sub-surface must only speed at an inconsistent speed. The real Universe is infinite. 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. The real Universe exists here and now

In your postulated abstract universe, you only have an abstract amount of finite space. You also only have an abstract finite amount of matter. You have tried your best to measure the immeasurable. You have your abstract speed of light, and your abstract sub-atomic particles. You have your abstract commencement of your abstract universe and your abstract guess about its abstract future.

Does this help?

Joe Fisher

Paul,

You must also take into account that as there is only matter, although matter seems to be separated into bits and pieces, in an infinity, all of the seeming separate surfaces of the sub-sub-microscopic, the sub-microscopic, the microscopic, the general, the macroscopic and the hyper macroscopic might be interlinked. 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. 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.

Joe

Paul Butler

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.

Vladimir Rogozhin

Dear Paul,

Great essay with deep socio-philosophical, scientific and technological analysis of the current state of the world, original ideas. Current state of the world and fundamental science requires, more than ever, the deepest of Cartesian doubt.

Thank FQXi that brings together people for "brainstorming" on very important topics of modern Humanity!

I wish you good luck!

All the Best,

Vladimir

Paul Butler

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.

Joe Fisher

Paul,

Do you have a real surface? Do you think that you are the only real thing that has a surface? Is your real surface older, younger or the same age as any other surface? At what point does your real surface commence? At what point does it end? Every star, every planet, every asteroid, every meteor, every spec of dust has a real surface does it not? Every particle has a real surface. Do you really think that a microscope could unerringly display the "smallest" piece of matter? There is no "smallest" in an infinity.

Joe

Paul Butler

Dear Valdimir,

Thank you for your analysis of my paper. I have (after much study of the structure of man's abilities and limitations) come to the conclusion that man has no hope of both accomplishing great advancements in technical structural knowledge and at the same time not use that knowledge to destroy himself without outside help. After an analysis of the outside help possibly available to man, I have come to the conclusion that this help can only be counted on to achieve the result of man's preservation when it comes from the highest structural level available. All of the other lower levels are both limited in their abilities and subject to their own faults that could result in failure, which is not acceptable. Only the one who alone inhabits the highest structural level is not subject to the desires of those in higher levels. He may use those of lower levels, however, to accomplish his will. All works that he does stand and no one can undo his works unless it is his will for it to be so. He alone can be man's sure help of preservation. It is, therefore, good that he desires to help man.

I have read your paper and found that it contains much good detail about some of the problems that man faces that could result in his destruction. You refer much to many philosophers and their sayings including many of their self-made up specialized terms that make it difficult for those who have not read all of their works to understand what you are saying. Since these papers are ideally to be readable to the common well educated man who may not be specialized in the area of philosophy, I recommend using more common language to paraphrase their sayings if you wish to reach them. The other option would be to define those terms as you use them, but the short paper size might preclude that option.

The main problem that I see and it is a common one in several papers in this contest is the concept that knowledge will correct man's faults of greed, desire for power and control over others, sexual weaknesses, pride (thinking of oneself as more important or more deserving than others), desire to have more substance and possessions than others, weakness as a result of fear of death or other losses, etc. It can be easily seen that even though man's knowledge has increased greatly, especially in recent years, he is still just as susceptible to his weaknesses as before this knowledge was gained. Knowledge is a tool and all tools can be used either for good or for evil. It does not have the ability to correct men's faults because they are written into man's structure. Only the one who wrote man's structure can overcome man's faults.

Sincerely,

Paul B.

Vladimir Rogozhin

Thank you, Paul. You're right: «Only the one who wrote man's structure can overcome man's faults.» As well said Gregory Gutner: "Event held in grasping structure means understanding" (G.Gutner

">Ontology mathematical discourse](https://teneta.rinet.ru/rus/ge/gutner_ontology_of_mathematic.htm

)).

This also applies to a person, and to nature. But need another dream, a Great Dream and "Common Cause". We need a "Great Common Cause" to save Peace, Nature and Humanity. Great Dream always go alond with Freedom without fear, Hope, Love, Justice. It's time. We start the path. The New Era and a New Generation demanded action.

Sincerely,

Vladimir

Paul Butler

Dear Joe,

For your argument to work, you first need to show me your evidence that the universe is infinite.

Sincerely,

Paul B.

pjackson

Paul,

So many think God is inappropriate in science, but like you I disagree. There are unknowns, and there's morality, so plenty of use for beliefs. What I disagree with is the common use of beliefs in science, where anything outside present doctrine is rejected a priori. That's common and kills advancement in understanding. You treat the subject well and in a very balanced way.

I was pleased to also find resonance with you views on particle dynamics, indeed I apply something similar, to a point, to good effect in my essay via '4-vectors' in a sphere. I'm intrigued by the possibilities of what you describe as 5 vectors. I've derived something perhaps slightly equivalent as the quasar jet based galaxy (and cosmic) recycling process, but (luckily!) not in any way controllable by man (If you'd like to look after the contest publication is imminent).

But I hope you'll read my essay first. It shows an understandable classical dynamic behind QM, and even has a touch of romance! Despite 5-vectors I suspect you agree causal free will. I fear it'll be swamped by theorising, but we must try! Thanks for a wide ranging well balanced viewpoint and valuable interesting and novel ideas.

Best wishes

Peter

Aaron Feeney

P.S., I will use the following rating scale to rate the essays of authors who tell me that they have rated my essay:

10 - the essay is perfection and I learned a tremendous amount

9 - the essay was extremely good, and I learned a lot

8 - the essay was very good, and I learned something

7 - the essay was good, and it had some helpful suggestions

6 - slightly favorable indifference

5 - unfavorable indifference

4 - the essay was pretty shoddy and boring

3 - the essay was of poor quality and boring

2 - the essay was of very poor quality and boring

1 - the essay was of shockingly poor quality and extremely flawed

After all, that is essentially what the numbers mean.

The following is a general observation:

Is it not ironic that so many authors who have written about how we should improve our future as a species, to a certain extent, appear to be motivated by self-interest in their rating practices? (As evidence, I offer the observation that no article under 3 deserves such a rating, and nearly every article above 4 deserves a higher rating.)

Paul Butler

Dear Peter,

Thank you for your comment about treating the subject well and in a balanced way. I have found that many tend to think that belief in God only applies to areas where man lacks knowledge and, therefore, falls back on a belief in God to explain the unknowns, but I have found that the scriptures contain much valuable scientific information that has been presented to man even thousands of years before man's science has determined those things. The source of this information could not have been man because man had no idea of the existence of such things when the scriptures were written. The scriptures give scientific information about things that man has not yet discovered. A true scientist searches all available sources of information in his endeavor to understand the world that he lives in. Man has made a great mistake in ignoring the scriptures and treating them as only stories or fables that are used to explain things that are currently not understood by science with the idea that at some time complete knowledge will be obtained by science and then the scriptures and a belief in God will no longer be necessary. The assumption has been made that God does not really exist without any proof and the evidence of God's existence contained in the scriptures and in the structure of the universe has been completely ignored. This has greatly set back the advancement of science especially in recent times and is greatly responsible for the current deadlock and dead end condition that exists in science today with theories that partly work, but don't work with other theories that also only partly work. You are right that concepts such as right and wrong only have meaning when there are things that are inherently right and other things that are inherently wrong. Without the knowledge that God does exist and that he created the universe and all things in it and that he, therefore, knows how to properly use it and work in it to obtain desirable results, so that we can trust that it is best for us to live in it in the way that he gives to us to do, looking at God's word (the scriptures) for guidance is completely irrational because if the scriptures were just made by some man or group of men, then it is no better than what any other man might come up with. If man is the only intelligent source that can determine right and wrong, then why would any man be concerned about what some other man might say, since that man is no more than he is? The result is that each man lives as it seems right in his own eyes. On the surface it seems like that should work ok because if you ask men if they believe it is wrong for someone to kill them or steal from them, etc., they will all say yes, so you can tell that they know what is right and what is wrong. If on the other hand, you ask men if it is wrong for them to kill someone else or steal from someone else, you are more likely to get more qualified answers based on conditions that would allow it under certain circumstances. Because of man's greed, desire to have more than he can produce, and desire to be considered more important than others, etc., men will naturally mistreat others for their own advantage and then rationalize mistreating them in order to convince others that it is ok to do so and in many cases to also convince themselves that they are actually doing good when they do so. In their governments they will make policies and laws, etc. that allow them to do these types of things to others so they can say that they are law abiding citizens while they actually are using the laws that they made to extract money, labor, or other resources from others and then transfer these things to themselves in one way or another. The problem of the rejection of new ideas and concepts in science is just one aspect of this system. It is mainly done because those who have established their power and control over others have set things up so that they gain much in money, position, and reputation from the established beliefs. Any new concept that would either show established beliefs to be false or would replace such a belief with a new concept that would give a better more detailed understanding than the established belief is naturally considered a threat to those who gain in the above mentioned ways from the current established belief. They will, therefore, naturally fight against establishment of the new concept in order to maintain their favorable position in the system even if it results in hindering the advancement of understanding. Even men who are scientists and supposedly searching for the truth are subject to these faults. Only God working in them can overcome such faults.

I looked at your paper and found some interesting concepts in it. It appears that we have both come to the conclusion that matter particles are not point objects as current standard theories tend to consider them to be. It doesn't make any sense to consider a particle to be a zero dimensional point object and at the same time consider it to be rotating, which requires two dimensions to accomplish. It would have the center around which the rotation could occur, but it would have nothing extending into two dimensions that could rotate around that center. Moreover, two dimensional rotation creates a directional mass effect. This would result in the particle demonstrating a different rest mass depending on what direction an interaction came from. A three dimensional motion is required to generate a non-directional mass effect in interactions. I found it necessary to go back to the basic observed behavior of energy photons and matter particles in their basic structure and in their interactions. I found that any viable theory has to be able to explain certain basic observational results. Some of these are:

1. Energy photons and matter particles can be changed into each other. This means:

a. Each must contain everything (any basic substance(s)) that is contained in the other.

b. The total number of either photons or matter particles is not conserved.

2. In the absence of interactions a Photon travels in a straight line at the speed of light while a matter particle can stand still in space. This means that the basic substance(s) within a matter particle must be structured in some way as to change an energy photon's light speed motion into either zero motion or into a cyclical restricted range motion that allows light speed motion within a restricted size curved enclosed path. That repetitive cyclical curved enclosed path can then sit still in space as a matter particle even though the photon that is traveling in that curved path is still traveling around that path at light speed.

3. Both photons and matter particles can demonstrate frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects. The basic substance(s) must be structured in some way that produces these effects.

4. Matter particles possess a static mass effect. This means that the basic substance(s) must be structured in such a way in a matter particle to produce this effect, but in an energy photon the basic substance(s) must be structured differently so this effect is not produced.

Any theory that is viable must be able to explain all of these basic observational effects and how they work. I found that if one considers simple motion to be the basic substance that both photons and matter particles are composed of, it can be structured in such a way as to produce both energy photons and matter particles. Since simple motions travel only in straight lines in the absence of interactions and, therefore, can't produce cyclical motions (such as back and forth direction reversal and rotation, etc.) without interactions, it is necessary to find a way to produce the cyclical motions that generate the frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects and the static mass effect. The frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects can all be produced by a motion traveling back and forth in a very small fourth dimension (that reverses direction due to interaction with the ends of the dimension) that interfaces with the lower three dimensions at ninety degrees like the other three dimensions interact with each other. The static mass effect can be produced by the curved angular motion (momentum) of the photon in its enclosed path. The motions that generate this curvature can be produced by motions in a fifth dimension that interface with the other dimensions in specific ways. There is no need for a time dimension because we live in a motion continuum in which the current complete set of all motion's conditions is what we call the present. Complete sets of motion conditions that were previously the current ones, but have now been replaced by later sets due to motions changing their positions, etc. are what we call the past. Complete sets of motion conditions that have not yet come to pass, but will become the current set are what we call the future. Time duration is just the relationship between a motion's travel at its specific motion amplitude through a specific distance. We merely use a cyclical motion such as the motion of a point on earth around the circumference of the earth as a standard motion to use as a comparison with other motions each of which is traveling through some specific distance with some specific motion amplitude. This means that there is no past to go back to because the motions in the motion continuum have left those past positions and have traveled to their current present positions. There is also no future to go to because the motion conditions that will exist in the future have not yet arrived at their future positions. All that really exists is the current present motion conditions. This is a very condensed and, therefore, limited explanation of things, but I hope you get the idea of some of things that are necessary to be addressed in any reasonable theory. All of man's current indications suggest that the universe does not recycle itself and, therefore, it will ultimately run down. Stars consume hydrogen and through a series of fusion reactions convert it into more massive elements up to iron. If the star then explodes, heavier atoms are also produced and all of these elements heavier than hydrogen are then scattered in space. New stars cannot use these heavier elements for fuel, but must use some of the remaining hydrogen as fuel. In the process they also convert that hydrogen into heavier elements in the same way. Over a long period of time the hydrogen that is available in space will be used up and then new stars will no longer be able to form. After all of the stars consume all of their hydrogen and the elements up to iron they will all burn out. Over time gravity would contract all of the remaining heavier elements into black holes, which would ultimately change the matter to energy photons and radiate them into space. Matter would then cease to exist. The energy photons would over a very long time interact with sub-energy particles that would lower their fourth vector velocities and, thereby also lower their frequency and dynamic mass effect and would also increase their wavelength. When their fourth vector velocities were depleted they would become sub-energy particles, so there would no longer be energy photons. Over a very long time the sub-energy particles would interact with each other, so in the end they would all be traveling at the same velocity (in the same direction with the same motion amplitude level). This would be the end state of the universe (the ultimate result of entropy).

I have not attempted to explain the concepts that are given in my papers in terms of Quantum Mechanics or Relativity theories, etc. because it will be easier to generate the necessary math structure from the theory presented than to try to stick with all of the unnecessary baggage that comes attached to those theories. Trying to conform a new theory that is based on a more detailed level of structure to less detailed theories is the easy way to get lost in the math details of those theories and end up with a theory that does not conform to observable reality. I have, therefore, chosen to present the theory and its supporting observational evidence and encourage those who see its value to develop the math to show how structure and interactions can actually work to generate observed reality. I have presented this problem to man by giving all of the necessary beginning structural details in a form that conforms to man's current observational level. I have purposely left out details of the mechanisms and flow of interactions, etc. My experiment is to see if man is capable of grasping the importance of the information that is presented, if he is able to overcome the above mentioned problems that would tend to prevent acceptance of that information, and if he is capable of determining the structure and flow of interactions that generate observable reality in the light of the provided information. Development of the math that describes these things is also highly desirable. This basic level of advancement is necessary if man is to enter into later more advanced relations on an equal basis. You demonstrate a more open minded ability to be willing to put away old things that don't work and to look for new and better ways to do things than many that I have come across. Maybe you will be the one or at least one who will develop these things. My other papers and comments on this site give most of the necessary information and I will be available to help in a limited fashion for some time, but I will ultimately have to leave this world, so that time is limited. Yes, cause and effect are designed into the universe at all structural levels. We all have been given free will and the ability to act upon that free will. Of course, God knows what choices and actions we will make and may at times work in us or the world in such a way as to prevent or to modify the results of those actions or to convince us to make better choices and actions, etc. Choosing to be his is the ultimate best choice that any of us can make and the effect that results from that choice is truly the only effect of value in the long run for any of us to experience.

May you prosper in that endeavor,

Paul B.