The Physical Nature Of Time by Paul N Butler

As I've described my view of time, it's that there is only this field of radiation energy and structure tends to condense out of it, like dew out of fog, because the energy isn't stable. In fact equilibrium is a state of order and isn't stable. So we have this universe of expanding radiant energy, interspersed with gravitational vortices. These collapse to the point they ignite, either from chemical reaction or pressure and radiate the energy back out as more expanding energy. This is a perpetual cycle, since the equilibrium isn't stable.

So the past is effectively that dimensional structure we view as reality, yet by the point we perceive it, is only collapsing information of past events. The (chemical) interaction and pressure created by this collapsing past radiates back out and informs the field of energy and thus directs how future structure is defined, thus creating the future. In a sense then, the unstable equilibrium is what we might define as the present. This isn't as clearly argued as I would like, but i hope you get the idea. It ties into the bottom up chaos/energy/process vs. top down order/structure of Complexity Theory, with collapsing structure as top down order, future to past direction of events and radiating energy as bottom up process, past to future direction of the energy manifesting those events.

Now to get to the point I've been mulling over. Part of my initial interest in understanding time has been an effect I could conjure up on occasion of predicting events if I just completely zone out. Being a rational sort, I needed an explanation. The event which describes my thinking was the tsunami that struck south Asia some years ago. Prior to its arrival, the water receded considerably and all the animals started acting disturbed. Given the wave nature of reality, we perceive only the present, yet it is like a cresting wave. Since our perspective is inherently subjective, we don't sense that drawing back, or vacuum which proceeds the arrival of the body of the wave. Yet for those beings most imbedded in their larger context and not self absorbed, this vacuum is as real as the wave itself.

Now since our brains function as electro-static fields, I think we have the ability to transmit our thought patterns to others, just as a radio transmitter is picked up by a receiver. For reasons of survival, because our world isn't very benign, we have also learned to mute our projection of thoughts so that others can't sense what we are thinking. (Suffice to say, I grew up as a younger child in a large, competitive family and this was apparent to me long before convention taught me it was taboo.)

Which is to say that these waves take many forms, across many spectrums, not just visible light and auditory. Since I've spent my life working with racehorses, I've had to develop these senses out of professional necessity.

John Merryman;

When looking at a theory, it is helpful to first see what class it fits into.

There are four main classes of theories. The first and highest class is composed of those theories that are derived directly from interaction with the real world. This class is the most likely to be valid because it is based on real world observations and tests that are usually repeatable. As an example, if you put an alternating electrical current through a wire and then position another wire that is connected to an ammeter at various angles and distances from the first wire you can determine the angle that causes the maximum current to be generated in the second wire and how that generated current varies with the distance between the wires. This experiment can be done in many different ways and it will always yield the same result that the current varies with the square of the distance. A theory that explains how and why the world works this way and is directly derived from this and other real world observations is more likely to be true than a theory from one of the other classes because it starts with the real world and builds directly on what we actually see in the world. The most surely established and useful theories are usually from this class. The second class of theories are those that come from visualizations in a person's mind that normally start with combining information derived from observed scientific laws and facts and then attempts to extrapolate more details by using visual thought experiments. This is the second most likely type of theory to yield valid results. Einstein's theory of relativity is in this class. The third theory class uses primarily abstract language structures such as the English language. It uses language constructs like rules of logic and often uses new terms to describe things and concepts that are not observed and may not even be able to be observed in theory. These types of theories are often not connected greatly to the real life observable world and are, therefore less likely to be true representations of the real world than the first two classes. The fourth and lowest class of theories is those that are derived mostly from second level abstract language structures such as abstract mathematics. It is very easy in this type of theory to lose one's connection to reality. Often the math leads to new constant and variable quantities that are not tied to anything in reality. As the math gets more complicated and separated from reality, one can get lost in a maze of a large number of possible values for a large number of variables that are not understood which seems to allow you to generate many different types of worlds by choosing different variable values, but there is no way to separate out the right set of variable values that truly represents the real world or to even know if any of the multitude of possible combinations is valid. A theory that generates too many possible worlds (without generating a path to the real one) is of vary little value. Of course, many theories contain some aspects of more than one of the above types, but usually one is predominate and is the basis of the theory.

To get a better understanding of your concepts let's start at the beginning of your comment here. First you talk about a field of radiation energy. Is this field made of photons of electromagnetic energy and if not what is it composed of and how is it generated or if it always existed what is its detailed nature? As an example does it exist in a dimensional system or does the dimensional system come from it and how if it does? What are the structures that condense out of it? Are the structures the gravitational vortices and if so do they represent or generate entities in the real world such as matter particles or energy photons, etc. How does the collapse of the vortices affect our real world (what do we see when one collapses? In short, how do all these things describe or generate the things that we see in reality in the world? The idea that equilibrium is not stable does not seem to be true in all cases in the real world. To give some examples, on the physical level a pencil balanced on the point of another pencil would not generally be very stable and any force applied to the pencil would likely cause it to fall off of the other pencil, but if you cut a hollow sphere in half and balance it on the tip of a pencil it can be very stable if the tip of the pencil is located at the central point inside the half-sphere. In this case if you apply momentary pressure to the half sphere, it would move off of its equilibrium point, but it would ultimately come to rest at that point again once friction dissipated the applied energy. On the chemical level, if you put a drop of ink into a glass of water, the ink molecules will be dispersed until they are equally distributed in all locations in the water and will tend to stay in that very stable state of equilibrium. Even on the atomic level a gas composed of hydrogen atoms in a container will distribute itself so that the atoms are equally distributed in all areas of the container to create a stable equilibrium. Of course, I may be misunderstanding your use of the term equilibrium. If so, what do you mean by it?

It is true that events that we see (such as a bat hitting a baseball) are not actually seen and perceived by us exactly when they occur because they are transmitted to us by photons, etc. that have a finite motion amplitude and once they reach our sense receptors the interactions that they generate and the further reactions in us that allow us to recognize and understand the event require other finite motions to occur. By the time we recognize that the ball has been hit by the bat, the bat may have recoiled backward some small distance or at least slowed down some and the ball's motion may have reversed direction. I do not see that there is such a thing as a collapsing past. There is just a continuum of motions and their interactions. The past does not really exist except for in the records of motions and their interactions that are stored in our minds. When the bat hits the ball, the event just causes some changes in certain motions in the continuum of motions that make up all motions as they were before the event. The motions continue on from the event in their new changed form so there is nothing left behind to collapse. Any changes in the information of the motions involved, such as a different direction or motion amplitude, are the result of new combinations of the information elements that the motions contained before the interaction. The total information content and motion content of the overall system remains the same. As an example, one particle of matter may receive an increase in its motion amplitude due to an interaction with another particle, but the other particle's total motion content will be reduced by the same amount. From the information standpoint, the motion amplitude information stored in one particle will contain a higher motion amplitude value than it did before the interaction while the other particle's motion amplitude stored value will be reduced by the same amount of change. This allows both total motion and information to be conserved in the event. The future does not really exist either. It is just the result of the continuation of motions and interactions from their present conditions. It does not need to be informed of what to do next because each entity's current motions already contain within themselves the position, motion amplitude, direction, etc. information that is needed to generate their next position, motion amplitude, direction, etc. and if the next position causes the particle to interact with another particle, the information elements of the two particles are combined dynamically in such a way that the overall information and motion quantities are conserved. Maybe you can give me a little more detail about the top down and bottom up theories that you mention as to how they work and how they apply in your theory.

It certainly could be that if you spent much time at the beach and got used to the normal tides etc., you might either consciously or subconsciously sense and come to understand that the receding of the water level from its normal value that would be expected by the current tide conditions etc. might mean that a tidal wave was approaching or possibly you might just get a feeling that something was not right, but not know exactly what was wrong. We can all predict the future in this way to one degree or another. It would be possible for about anyone who stood at a bus stop and saw the bus approaching and slowing down as it approached the bus stop to predict that in the future the bus would stop at the corner. Some present observable data is just less obvious than other data making it harder to see the total motion patterns involved and, therefore, making accurate predictions from the data more difficult.

It is possible with the use of advanced fifth vector structuring technology to observe and analyze structures at the atomic and even particle levels and to connect to such structures in the brain to tap into another person's senses or even thoughts, generally without the other person knowing it. It is also possible to transfer thoughts and images etc. to others in the same way. This is, however, way beyond the present technology of man in this world and will likely remain so for hundreds of years. That is all I will talk about that at this time. As far as your theory is concerned it could be tested by studying a child that had been isolated from other people and could not have learned to not use such an ability. If his thoughts were naturally projected to others they should be able to be detected by others around him. Of course if you believe in God, it would be easy to see that he would have such abilities to give you information or even remove it at any time.

I guess you could experiment and see if you find any such method of natural thought transfer. My guess is that it has already been tried and I have not heard about anyone in this world having success at finding any such waves etc. that are generated naturally in the brain and are emitted strongly enough that they could carry thoughts to others or any natural mechanisms in people's brains to receive such waves etc. that carry thoughts. People can generally analyze their stored records of past motion conditions along with the current conditions and then extrapolate the patterns found to predict future conditions with some level of accuracy, which will vary depending on such variables as how many records containing useful data are present and how widely do the records cover all the variables (otherwise your experience level with that type of data). This is generally called intuition. If you have any such validated information, however I would be interested in seeing it.

Paul,

Thank you for taking the time to respond in such a thoughtful and detailed manner. Hopefully my response is at least half as clear.

In my own submission, I tried to remain fully in the first category of theory, subsequent discussion of how such a basic perspective might interact with other's observations about the subject and how it interfaces with a complex reality does lead one off the deep end into more speculative concepts.

The "field of energy" is a good example. In other posts I've proposed that light expands as what might be thought of as a wave, but not one traveling through a medium. Rather an expanding sphere of analog energy from its source, as opposed to quantities of photon particles. The spectrum and any pulses are caused by emission, rather than interaction with a medium and it would only be in contact with anything sufficient to interfere does it quantize into particles. Obviously this is highly speculative and not fundamental to my description of time. That said, it does explain how light can travel such enormous distances and still remain so clear. It would also possibly explain how this light is redshifted, since a wave would have to fill compounding volume the greater its radius. So "tired light" would not be caused by interference of photon particles, since they only form on reception and remain constant in energy, but reduced in number, due to the properties of how light interacts. This interface of light as an energetic expansion and collapsing into quanta would also signal the transition between pure energy and the initial state of mass. All speculation on my part and any rebuttal or clarification is welcome.

Dimensions are a conceptual description of this energy and the space it occupies, since three dimension space is the coordinate system based on an arbitrary center point, of which there could be any number. As we exist as the center point of our individual realities. The projection of time as a fourth linear dimension is an intuitive construct, aka, narrative. That is why we view it as a fundamental dimension which proceeds from past events to future ones, when the logical conclusion is that these events are effect, not cause and as each is replaced by the next, go from future potential to past circumstance.

Structure would be the inter-relationship between gravitational collapse and energetic expansion. This provides the matrix of spin that is the basis of mass. If gravity has the advantage, it is contracting the energy contained within the structure. When expansion prevails, it radiates energy away. While this is speculation on my part, I do think it approximates a rough draft of what we observe. I should note that I don't agree with the Big Bang model of the universe and that redshift is cause by the above mentioned process of expanding waves. The resulting redshift causes a horizon line for visible light, though black body radiation travels across it. What we have than, is a vacuum populated by any number of gravitational vortices, i.e.. galaxies and galaxy structures, to atomic structure, that are both drawing energy in, both with the potential to radiate it back out. I put it this way because of the discontinuous/continuous, digital/analog dichotomy is a function of this, with expanding energy representing the continuous and collapsing mass delineating the discontinuous. This ties back into my proposition about time, in which energy is constantly expanding into the future and leaving the past, while structure is first in the future, carried along in the present for as long as the energy manifests it, then is deposited in the past, when all energy is removed. Since three dimensional space is essentially a description of structure, that is why I'm saying it collapses, relative to the energy, as the energy expands relative to it.

Your examples of equilibrium all represent a balance of elements. What I'm proposing is that since I view space as infinite, then the energy/mass occupying it isn't stable at a completely uniform state, which would probably be only a few degrees over the present measured cosmic background radiation. The even level of this radiation, at 2.7k, would be the equilibrium state, over which a phase transition occurs and it is unstable and starts to quantize when not in sufficient motion. Like a stopped bicycle, it falls over and starts to collapse. This provides a far simpler explanation for the CMBR and its energy level than Inflation Theory. In the other end of the scale, Black Holes are not holes in spacetime, but vortices in which most energy is radiated back out before reaching the event horizon and that which does fall in is ejected as jets out the poles.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, geometry mistakes the center point for zero, yet 1(-1) equals nothing, as in blank space, not a centerpoint between them. So zero should be the empty page, not a point at the center of it. In cosmology this would be a vacuum, not a singularity.

As for the speculation about how the future might impinge on the present and other comments on reading minds, I would start by saying I've spent my life working with and riding horses, race horses specifically. So I do have the impression animals have it over us when it comes to living in the present. As well as the fact that their sensory abilities are at the very least, different from ours. So I've spent a great deal of time considering the issue. When I'm thinking of reading other's mind, it isn't on the human level of calculation and introspection, but on a far more basic level of intent projection. This ability has carried over into a surface reading of others. For me, the situation where this is most apparent with people is driving on the road. By and large they are projecting their awareness onto the situation ahead of them and I tend to sense it. It can be it any number of ways. One of the more obvious are those little spots in my vision, as well as waves and clumps of spots, depending on how much they are focused, vs. distracted. Also I get flashes of emotion and occasionally a strange word or phrase. Since I have consciously studied this level of my personal interaction with my environment, it isn't something I'm imagining, since it is often a distraction and so I try to shut it out. Having grown up as a younger child in a large family, I had to develop a strong understanding of my own space and bubble at a very early age. I remember as a child, laying on the porch, watching an ant, when it stopped and this tiny cone of awareness started having around with its antennae. As for whether anyone else has experienced this before, in school there was a certain redheaded Irish girl who was a bit of trouble and I had trouble getting her out of my mind. One day it seemed there was one of those spots in my vision and it glowed slightly red. There was a line running through/across it, drawing it toward me. The result was a classic Valentine heart. So it is my impression that as we have grown more complex, we have lost a lot of old knowledge. As you point out, the information content remains the same, so all this new information must have displaced more then we appreciate. Remember, it's the energy which goes from past to future and it's the information which goes from future to past.

Regards,

John

Sorry for some of the grammatical errors, its late. (That's "waving", not "having," in the story of the ant.

Dear Paul,

let me begin by offering you my apology for the critical comment on very legthy postings not only by you but a few others too. it is just my personal opinion which can easily ignore. You will grant me my independence when i submit the following points in support of my view:-

1. During my education, i was told to respond to others specifically to the query being made. i also learnt that it is impolite to tell others what they are not keen to know, however profound your opinion may be, as per your judgement.

2. The interest of other is supreme in any dialogue between the two. If one is not seeking details from you, it is best to be brief. This helps the other understand/comprehend you better. It is for the other to seek specific details that are of interest.

3. Profoundness of one may just be routine for another. None of us are likely to have the same background knowledge.

4. Never tell any thing to the other unlesws he seeks it from you. Only the other knows what aspects/details he is interested in. Your opinion or interest in this regard is not important, howsoever significant you may consider the same.

Please ignore my observations if you don't care or like the same. i wish to remain friendly to you , as to all the other authors in this format. Good luck to you!

John;

In order to make any reasoned responses to your theory, I will need to ask many more questions to get further details of what you are proposing before I can give detailed analysis of it. I will try to look at it with the detail that you have given me, but my responses may change as I get a more complete idea of the details involved. I won't get into the medium or no medium concept now because it requires that other things of lesser degree be understood first and so it is a more advanced level than would be prudent to go into at this time. I assume from your comment that you believe that the energy travels through empty space, if that is wrong please clarify. My first question is, do you believe that this analog energy is composed of motion itself or do you believe that there must be something that is in existence that carries the motion through a distance in the empty space? How do you believe that the spectrum (Frequency/wavelength) are generated at emission (What is the mechanism or cause)? What is the cause or mechanism that generates photons from the analog wave when the wave comes into contact with anything sufficient to interfere with it? What is the effect on the wave front due to the photon generation process (does it get holes in it, a local or global decrease in energy (frequency) etc.) and if the wave front and the photons both travel at the speed of light, are the photons that are created in front of, behind, or embedded in the wave front after they are created? Once a photon is created, does it remain in existence and then travel away from its place of creation at the speed of light until it interacts with something or is its existence only a short-term transitional part of an interaction between the wave front and the interfering object that ends with the end of the interaction? It seems to me that light could travel either in the form of photons or such a wave and could still remain clear if space is mostly empty. On the other hand, I believe that it has been discovered that the light from a distant source can be partially or completely blocked or distorted by passing through dust clouds etc. I would find it even harder to believe that the red shift would be caused by the compounding volume filled by the wave because the wavelength of the wave proceeds from the direction of its source to the opposite direction (the direction that it is traveling into while the compounding volume of the wave front is at ninety degrees to that direction). As an example, if you generated a spherical wave that was only one wavelength thick and then you turned the generator off, the wave front produced would expand (at any point on its surface) in a direction that was at ninety degrees from the direction of the wave front's travel, but the space inside of the sphere would consist of the one wavelength wave front envelope filled with empty space behind it. It is like blowing up a balloon. When you blow up the balloon, its skin does not get thicker, but is rather made thinner as it expands. You could possibly justify a belief from this that the wavelength of the expanding wave envelope would become shorter (blue shift) as the wave envelope is stretched, but not that it would get longer (red shift) (unless I am missing something in your thoughts about it). If the wave front continues to travel outward from its source at the speed of light, but its energy at any point on the wave front diminishes with the square of the distance traveled, the wave front's energy cannot be stored in its three dimensional motion because it has remained the same. How do you believe it is stored? What are the properties of how light interacts (that you mentioned) in your theory? What is the pure energy composed of and how does it collapse into quanta? How is the energy stored in both cases and what is the difference between the two storage methods that causes it to be only analog in one case and only quantized in the other?

In your theory, what is your understanding of a dimension, what is its properties or information structure, and how do the dimensions interconnect and interact with each other to produce space, as we know it and the energy and matter etc. entities in it. In what form does the energy (and also matter particles) exist and how are their information structures stored (such as position, direction, and motion amplitude etc.)? How do energy waves and photons (and matter particles) interact with the dimensional structure? Are they all just three-dimensional entities or do they take part in other dimensions etc? I think that we mostly agree that time is not a physical dimension, but is the result of motions and their interactions. The future being composed of those motions/interactions that will interact with us, but have not done so yet (future potential), the present being those motions/interactions that are interacting with us now, and the past being the motions/interactions that were in our present, but no longer are interacting with us (past circumstance) and records of them have been stored in our minds. If I am wrong let me know.

Energy and gravity do often work in opposition to each other and that opposition can yield a stable equilibrium that is long lasting such as in the case of stars rotating around the centers of galaxies. This state of equilibrium of counterbalancing motions at all size levels allows for the existence of complex structures such as atoms and molecules etc. upon which our world is constructed (I realize that the strong and weak forces also play their parts in atoms etc., but like energy they are also due to motion transfers between entities that are a part of maintaining this equilibrium). Motion is the base of all entities whether they are energy entities, matter entities, or other types of entities. It is the combination of motions existing in and working through the structure of the dimensional system that generates all entities whether matter or energy and manifests to us our perception of and interaction with those entities, including those that are directly a part of us. All motions are basically the same. The only basic variables are a motion's amplitude, the place in the dimensional system in which it exists, and its direction of travel in that place. Even at this most basic level of the construction of the entities that exist in our world, time is the relationship between the distances in the dimensional system and the motion amplitude of the motions that travel through those dimensional distances. There is no need for any motion to go into any future to prepare the future for the next change in motion etc. There is no such future structure to go to. Each motion contains within itself all the information necessary to generate its next position. Each motion contains within itself its current position or location in the dimensional structure and the direction it is traveling in that structure. It also contains the quantity of motion it possesses (motion amplitude). These three pieces of information are all that is needed to generate the motion's next position in the dimensional distance through which it is traveling (its next present motion condition). This is why a motion always continues in the same direction at the same rate (motion amplitude) unless it is acted upon by (interacts with) another motion because all it knows is where it is at, what direction it is traveling in, and how fast it is going. When two motions interact, there is a sharing of this basic information between the two motions the result of which is a new modified information set in each motion that then determines each motion's next present condition. It is not quite that simple because both energy and matter entities contain several motions in different dimensions within the dimensional system and any interaction can change the information set in any combination of those motions in each entity involved in the interaction. I am assuming that the energy waves in your theory do not interact directly with anything, but just generate photons that do the actual interacting. I see that you do have the understanding that mass effect is primarily the result of angular motion. This mass effect is primarily due to the angular components produced by the entity's fourth dimensional motion (dynamic mass effect) in the case of an energy entity and in the case of a matter entity it is mainly due to the angular components produced by both the fourth and fifth dimensional motions (both dynamic and rest mass effects). Because gravity is connected to the mass effect it should be apparent that it is also connected to these angular motion components, but further information about that is at a more advanced level than that which is for general dissemination at this time. Sorry I should be getting more details about your theory so I can know how to properly introduce concepts in a way that will be more understandable. In your theory, how is the photon's dynamic mass effect generated (it increases with the photon's increase in frequency and decrease in wavelength)? What do you see as the cause of the locked relationship between frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effect in a given photon so that as frequency increases the mass effect also increases and the wavelength decreases and what causes a specific change in one term to always generate the same amount of variation in the other terms for all photons? What is the cause of the single motion amplitude structure of a photon and why is it the particular motion amplitude that we call the speed of light? Do you view a matter particle as a point particle and if so how can it have any angular motion to produce its mass effect? If a matter particle has size, do you view it as something like a small spinning solid ball or more like a point such as a photon traveling around an enclosed path? What causes a matter particle to have a frequency and wavelength effect similar to that of a photon? When you talk about the continuous/discontinuous, and digital/analog, I assume you are talking about the so called quantum nature of matter and energy photons as the digital and discontinuous while you view the energy waves as continuous and analog. Do you see anything that causes the quantum effects? If they seem to be the result of the structure of the universe, what in that structure causes them? To me all currently existing conditions of motions and their interactions, whether they are caused by energy or gravity are on the global level a part of the present. The motion conditions and their interactions that did exist have changed to generate the current motion conditions and their interactions and, therefore, no longer exist as they were in the past. The motion conditions and their interactions that do not yet exist, but will be generated by the current motion conditions and their interactions are in the future. All motion is basically the same whether directed inward by gravity or outward by energy. If you jump off of a chair and get pulled to the floor by gravity, that motion from the chair to the floor is in your future before you jump, in your present after you jump while you are falling to the floor, and in your past after you land on the floor and the motion has ended. If you use a lot of energy when you jump so that you first move upward against gravity that upward motion is also first in your future, then in your present, and lastly in your past. In the case of an expanding energy wave, all of its expansion that occurred before it reached its present expansion state is in the past, its current state of expansion is in the present, and expansion that occurs after its current state of expansion is in the future. This sounds like it is expanding into the future, but the actual expansion is always only in the present. Its current expanding motion conditions will generate its next immediate expanding motion conditions and those conditions will lead to the next conditions, but when they actually exist they are in the present. So, an expanding energy wave can have a part of its motion in the past, a part of its motion in the present, and a part of its motion in the future, but only the present really exists in reality. The same thing applies to a motion that is caused by the contraction of gravity as already covered in the jumping off of the chair example. In a sense all motions leave a past of past motion conditions that no longer exist behind them, exist in a present of present motion conditions, and move onward toward a future of future motion conditions, that never actually exist in that future because when those conditions are actually reached they are no longer in the future, but instead they are in the present. Part of the problem is that it is often stated that something is in the future or in the past as though the past and future are actual physical places where things are stored. In actual fact when we say that something is in the past we are really generally saying that it was in the present, but it no longer exists in the present in the same way as it did. When we say that something is in the future, we are saying generally that it does not exist in the present in a certain way, but that we have extrapolated the current motion conditions and their interactions out and have determined that when the current motion conditions and their interactions have changed through their normal motion progressions and interactions, it will then exist in the present in that way.

There is no real evidence that space is infinite, but there is probably no proof that it is not either. By a completely uniform state, are you talking about equal distribution of motion (energy and mass) throughout space, so that each cubic centimeter of space would have the same amount of matter and energy in it as every other cubic centimeter? Why do you believe such a condition would not be stable? Is there a reason that you picked 2.7k as the equilibrium point? What would cause this phase transition and how would it work? Why would it quantize (What is the mechanism that generates the quantization)?

In relation to what concepts is your reference to the 1(-1) = nothing instead of 0? How is this concept applied to your theory?

Intents are generated in the spirit, which is not composed of matter and energy that is known to man at this time. The part of the soul that interfaces with the spirit is also not made of matter and energy that is known to man at this time. This subject is will beyond the level that can be released for local consumption at this time and likely for several hundred years into the future, so I can only give generalized answers to you about it. If you desire to study the greater meaning of the effects that you are experiencing, I would suggest the following (if you have already done some of these things you can ignore those things). First see a doctor to eliminate the possibility that any of the effects are caused by physical problems such as macular degeneration, etc. This may seem like I am trying to put it off as something else, but I am not. It is to establish a valid baseline for the next steps to assure validity of the study by allowing you to concentrate on the right set of effects. Next you will need someone that is not prejudiced either toward or against the concepts being studied that will be able to rightly examine the results that come from your experiment and tell it like it is and will be believable to others. Then you will need some test subjects that should vary from those that believe in the abilities that you mention to those that do not. You should not be allowed to know which ones believe and which ones do not believe. Situations can then be set up that have generally been the most conducive to your sensing abilities such as the car situation if that works best for you. The test subjects could be given specific things to concentrate on such as the left side of the road, the sky, the road itself, or on certain words or phrases to think about over and over in their mind. You should not be able to see the test subjects face to avoid visual cues. Any reflections of the test subject in the windows, etc. should also be eliminated from view. You should then write down what you see and otherwise sense that you believe is caused by the test subject's concentration or thoughts etc. Several different tests should be done with each test subject with concentration on different things each time. You might even try to have the test subject try to not concentrate on anything as much is possible and still drive or to continually shift his concentration from one thing to another to see if that is detectable to you also. After the tests are all done, the data produced can be analyzed and you can know for sure what your abilities are and also get more insight as to how they work. You could then try different tactics to increase those abilities or make them more accurate. I suppose that if you could find that red headed girl she might make a good test subject or maybe even wife if you are not already married. I doubt that the ant would help much though.

Narendra,

Apology accepted. It would be good if you have not already done so to offer an apology to John Merryman on his paper's space also because as I said his comments were not very long at all. Mine were actually long, but my main objection was the egoism part. I have found that in this world if one does not respond to such comments others generally assume they are true even without evidence. It was not unexpected to receive such a comment though because in my research into man's information structures I have found that if information is provided that is off by more than a few degrees of dispersion from the accepted main tunneling path (very different from what most people believe or are being told to believe) it is either ignored or if it is in some way viewed as a threat to mainstream positions it is attacked with the intent to marginalize it. Such attacks are not actually completely negative because it means that the provided information has been understood at least to the level that it is considered to be a threat by someone. The bad thing is that the combination of such defence mechanisms that are not based on the validity of the information, but only on a perceived threat against a part or all of another position in combination with man's very narrow information acceptance dispersion angle means that in the future when large amounts of information must be provided to and understood by man in this world, it will need to be spoon-fed slowly by introducing small changes to existing positions and slowly moving in the desired direction in order to stay within the acceptable dispersion angle. This will greatly increase the time before the provided information will be useful to man. This means that in emergency situations direct intervention could be more likely needed, which is usually not desirable. The main other approach is to see if any individuals have a wide enough dispersion angle to allow for a local team to handle such emergencies. This has been a sci-fi moment provided to get your attention, at least as far as you know. Most of the information in it is true, however. I will now respond to your points.

1. If a person strictly adhered to the concept of only communicating with others in response to and completely in line with their questions, that person would never have the opportunity to introduce and promote any new concepts to others. I generally agree with not bothering to continue to give information to those that do not desire to know it (with some exceptions for the other person's safety, etc.) The problem is that you generally do not know if information that you give to someone will be accepted or rejected until after it is given. In the case with Carlo, I gave information that was aimed at simplifying and advancing his work. I then waited to see if or how he would respond. When John Merryman responded to my comment to Carlo I gave him an answer and then referred him to my paper's space for any further interaction. I believe this was a reasonable way to respond. Later when Carlo made his next comment and did not respond to me, I assumed that he was not keen as you would say to know the information that I could provide and so I would have left the situation as it was except for your comment, which I felt the need to respond to because of the negative content aimed at me and John Merryman.

2. I consider this point to be both true and unfortunate. It is true because of man's very narrow information dispersion angle, which does not allow for the reception of very large amounts of information that is greatly different from what the person has experienced in the past. It is unfortunate because it means that new information cannot be presented in the way that would be the easiest to understand and would promote the most efficient transfer of information to the other person. On the Internet much time can be wasted in brief back and forth dialogue often with several days between responses only to find out after an extended time that the other person was not interested in the first place. If everyone always waited for others to ask for details that are of their interest, no new concepts would ever be shared because until you share at least some of the details about a new concept with someone he would not have any knowledge of the new concept and, therefore, would not be able to ask any questions about it.

3. That is true. A very good point.

4. This is generally a very bad way to go if you have some new concept that you are trying to share with others because the others would never seek it from you as they would not know of its existence or that you knew of it. Another problem with this concept is that we all need to know some things that we are not really interested in. Some children do not like to learn mathematics and would never seek knowledge of it from their teacher, but it is best for them to at least learn enough in that area to do the many things in daily life that require knowledge of it. If, for another example, you figured out that in fifty years there would be a great disaster that would cause the death of millions of people, but it could be prevented if you could teach certain concepts to people that would allow them to develop the needed technologies over that period so that they could avert the disaster, you would likely find that when you attempted to do so using your four principles it would be impossible to find anyone that was interested in learning the new concepts especially if they were much different from the currently accepted concepts.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in being polite and considerate of others and to live peaceably with others as much as possible in general, but I have found that sometimes others use those same concepts to try to control and manipulate people for their own selfish benefit at the expense of those that are trying to be good in their actions. I will often suffer it when it just has to do with me, but when the lives or well being of others are at stake different tactics are often more prudent.

Paul,

That's going to take me a few days to really process. Some thoughts though;

One of the consequences of my observation about the nature of time, that energy goes from past events to future ones, while these events go from being in the future to being in the past, is that while energy and information are inseparable, but they are opposite sides of the same coin. So when you ask, "What exists?" I would say that it is the energy which exists, but it must manifest information/shape/structure, etc. This structure is first potential, then as long as the energy manifests it, it is present, then when the energy has drained from it, it becomes past. Obviously much evidence remains of the past, but it is degrading and constantly being recycled as supporting structure for new combinations, etc.

As for how light can redshift as a function of distance, I admit I'm speculating, as I find the current expanding universe model, with the various additions required to support it, especially Inflation Theory, increasingly illogical. How can the very fabric of space expand, if we still have a stable lightspeed against which to measure it. I understand your point that a normal wave would be blueshifted as it is stretched, but how about transverse waves? It does get to the very nature of light.

Another logical problem I have is the description of space as "three dimensional. It would seem any three dimensional perspective of space is subjective to the center point of these three lines. As any understanding of perspective shows, even the slightest changes can yield completely different sets of perspectives. So it would seem a proper description of space would describe it as infinitely dimensional. Dimensions are essential a function of direction and distance, yet another concept used to define space is that of volume. The same logic used to argue time is an additional dimension of space, could be used to argue that temperature is an additional parameter of volume, given that changes in volume will have a mathematical effect on the temperature of energy contained within.

As for conscious projection, it is probably not a subject I should have brought up, but the subject of consciousness has been introduced into the conversation by Narendra, among others and it just came out. It is something I've had affect me for as long as I can remember. Having spend much of my life outside, I guess I've just spent too much time studying the patterns in the atmosphere which seem to integrate through the surface of the eye after awhile. That it ties into my intuition we are essentially individual cells of some deeper being, much as our cells form us and that we come and go just as the cells that make us up come and go. It sounds a bit metaphysical and new agey, but it's equally hard nosed and blood thirsty, since life is a constantly evolving process which creates and consumes itself in order to grow. The absolute is the basis from which we rise, not an ideal from which we fell. It's the energy pushing into the future, not the information receding into the past.

I have to get back to work.......

P.S,

"transverse wave"; In the sense that you aren't measuring the energy of just the point of contact, which is shorter in the conventional sense, but since the quanta reflects the entire wave, which is spread over such a big area. So the photon is a hologram of the entire wave. Solves the entangled particle, action at a distance problem.

"which creates and consumes itself in order to grow"; Just as energy creates and consumes information.

Now I am late....

John,

That is ok it takes me awhile to do the same also. It is better to think it through than to jump to quick conclusions.

It may be that we are looking at energy and structure differently. So far when you talk about energy it seems that you are talking mainly about electromagnetic energy. When I talk about energy I am going to a much lower level and to an all encompassing concept of motion. All things whether they be electromagnetic energy particles (or waves) or matter particles are made up of motions. These motions constitute the true energy as the motive force behind all large scale motion effects and resistance to motion effects that are generally attributed to forms of energy such as mechanical, electromagnetic, and potential energy, etc. They also constitute all structural components such as matter particles and all the large scale structures that are made from them. The only difference between electromagnetic energy (your energy) and matter particles (your structure) is that the matter particles contain an additional motion in the fifth dimension that causes its path in the first three dimensions to be curved rather than the straight-line path of energy. This curvature of its path causes the matter particle's path to curve back upon itself to create a continuous local closed path for its motion to travel in. As viewed from my viewpoint matter or structure is just the next step up from energy particles in a hierarchical structure of motions. Both matter (structure) and energy are completely composed of the most fundamental entity, which is motion. Through interactions all of the motion contained in a matter particle can be transferred to other matter or energy entities causing the particle of matter to cease to exist. The same can happen to energy particles. The motions that they were composed of continue to exist, however, in the other matter or energy particles that they were transferred to. A matter particle's fifth dimensional motion is the same as its fourth dimensional motion or its motions in the first three dimensions. It is only where the motion is located in the dimensional system that gives it its particular properties that it adds to the structure of the matter particle. This is the same for energy particles except they do not have a fifth dimensional motion. Instead of saying that energy is what exists and it manifests information/shape/structure, I would say that motion and the dimensional system exist and contain information and motion manifests or shows itself in the form of energy and matter (shape/structure) through the dimensional system. At the next higher level of translation, the energy is the mediator that manifests or allows us to detect and understand the matter structures, but the matter structures are really not just made of matter, they are the result of a delicate interplay of both energy and matter, which is in turn the result of the overall equilibrium between energy's natural tendency to expand (travel in a straight line) and matter's natural tendency to contract (travel in a curved path). When we say that something was in the present, but is now in the past, we do not mean that it has now ceased to exist because all of the energy has drained out and the matter that is left has collapsed into a black hole. As an example, if your car gets old and you take it to the recycling plant and it is melted down, it no longer exists as your car and is on the global level in the past, but the metal still exists in the form of that complex energy and matter interplay. It has only changed its shape through a series of motions. Structure does not need to collapse for time to pass. Expansion of energy is also not necessary for time to pass. As a particle of matter is traveling through its enclosed path time goes by because it travels through a distance at a given motion amplitude. The matter particle's structure has not collapsed for the time to go by neither has the energy that is traveling in that enclosed path expanded for the time to go by. Instead the motion that would cause the expansion and the motion that would cause the contraction work together and counteract one another to create a stable path structure to make a stable matter particle structure. Yet time has occurred due to the motion through a distance or the change in position, which has occurred. When you look at your desk, it may look as though it is not moving and, therefore you may think that it is not experiencing time, but if you could look much closer at it you would see the molecules have vibrating motions, the atoms are moving in the molecules, the matter particles are moving in the atoms, the matter particles are moving in their enclosed paths, and various other interactions are occurring with external motion interactions with photons and matter particles, etc. If you back far enough away from the desk, you would see that it is moving around the earth's center and moving around the sun, etc. All of these motions through distances with various motion amplitudes generate time for the desk. At this point it would be a good idea to look more closely at information and how it works in all of this. Let's start with the simplest structure, a single motion in a single dimension. This motion contains three main entities of information. They are position, direction, and motion amplitude. The direction information is needed because of the bidirectional nature of the dimension to choose between one of the two possible paths of motion progression. It is set at the beginning of the motion and can only be changed as the result of an interaction with another motion or possibly the end of the dimension. Because it has only two possible states it only requires one bit to store it in information terms. The position information would also be set at the beginning of the motion and could be changed by the motion amplitude information or by an interaction with another motion. The motion amplitude information is also set at the beginning of the motion and can only be changed by an interaction with another motion. Notice that in the absence of an interaction with another motion or with the end of the dimension, the only information that can change is the position information and that change is controlled by the motion amplitude information. At any given present moment the motion amplitude information determines what the change in position information will be in the next moment. The only thing that would change as time goes by is the position information. The motion amplitude information determines how much that change will be for the next moment. The present motion conditions set up the changes for the next present motion conditions. I used the example of moments as if time is divided into some indivisible small unit called a moment, but that is not what I meant to convey. I was just trying to show it in a way that could be easier to visualize. Think of the moments getting smaller and smaller until they merge into a continuum. The result is still the same only you have analog information control instead of digital control. As you can see it all occurs in the present. The position information is continually updated at the rate determined by the motion amplitude information. Notice there is no need for anything to go into the future to inform it to change the position information by some amount. If you know the motion amplitude information content you can use it to determine the position of the motion and the value of the position information at some point in the future, but it does not exist that way until that future point becomes the present. Likewise, as the position information content changes, its previous contents no longer exist and become a part of the past. Only the present actually ever exists. The information entities are all conserved. Only the content of the information within the entities can change. In this case it is the position information that changes within the position information entity.

Because normal light waves do not blue shift we can see that a light wave does not create tension as it expands as a balloon does. This means that it would be more like a gas that would just get thinner with fewer molecules per unit of space as it expands rather than some type of cohesive entity that would be bound together as a single unit and would exert tension on itself as it was stretched. This would be more in line with the idea of the wave front being composed of individual photons than just a solid wave front. Another thing that seems to me to be an indication of the photon concept is that because the wave weakens in relation to the square of the distance it would seem that a wave front that had traveled billions of light years would be too weak to be able to generate photons at the end of its travel. On the other hand, if photons were initially generated they would each continue to contain the same amount of energy (motion) as long as they did not interact with anything on the way to the destination. You would just see fewer photons the farther away you were from the source because they would be spread further apart. At least a great part of the red shift is caused by interactions between light particles and sub-light particles. Sub-light particles are particles that travel in the first three dimensions at composite velocities less than the speed of light. They do not contain fourth or fifth dimensional motions and so they travel in a straight line like a light particle, but because they do not possess a fourth dimensional motion they do not exhibit frequency, wavelength, or variable mass effects. They do not have the angular components that generate the dynamic mass effect in energy particles because these are generated by the fourth dimensional motion, which they do not possess, so they only have a very small mass effect that is due to their composite three dimensional motion. They usually do not interact with matter particles because their mass effect is below the threshold of matter interactions, but they would interact some with energy particles. They would tend to slow the energy particle down in some direction in the first three dimensions, but this would cause motion to be induced back into the particle's composite three dimensional motion from its fourth dimensional motion to restore it to the speed of light. The net result would be a slight reduction in the fourth dimensional motion, which would cause the frequency of the photon to decrease, its wavelength to increase, and its variable dynamic mass effect to decrease. Or to put it another way, it would be red shifted. The greater the distance that the photon traveled the greater number of such interactions it would experience and this would mean that the red shift would be proportional to the distance traveled.

First we do not actually live in a three dimensional world. Our structure is just such that we can only directly observe the first three. We can indirectly sense the fourth dimension by the frequency, wavelength, and variable mass effects that a fourth dimensional motion causes in energy photons and matter particles. We can indirectly detect the fifth dimension by the curvature effect that a fifth dimensional motion causes in an energy photon to change it into a matter particle. We are used to thinking of three dimensions in terms of grid structures with length, width, and height delineated by reference lines with some zero point at the intersection. If you could look at the whole universe at once from outside of it, you might be able to see some preferred directions so that if you traveled in a certain direction you would be able to say I am traveling in only dimension number one and if you then stopped and turned ninety degrees in the proper direction and then started moving again you could then say now I am traveling only in dimension number two, etc., but from our perspective in which we only see a small part of the universe and we see it from inside of it, we have no visual cues to generate absolute coordinates. When we generate coordinates they are, therefore local constructs that are not tied in any way to actual dimensions and therefore one such construct can greatly vary compared to another one in its alignments of dimensional lines because the chosen alignments are either randomly chosen or are chosen in relation to some particular structures in the universe with no standard references for all such constructs. The concept of dimensional lines is much like the concept of moments that I used above. You can just think of adding more and more lines parallel to the existing lines until you have a continuum. The best that we can do at this time is to think of the combination of the motions in one, two, or all of the first three dimensions (the three dimensional composite motion) as producing a certain composite motion amplitude in some direction in the first three dimensions. We cannot determine how much of that motion is produced by dimension one, two, or three. We also cannot tell whether the motion is aligned with one of the dimensions with all of the motion coming from that dimension, whether it is aligned with two dimensions so that the motion is the composite motion of those two dimensions, or whether the motion is shared by all three dimensions. For most practical situations it really doesn't matter though. If space was infinitely dimensional, it would take an infinite number of coordinates to describe a given location in it. You are right that temperature does vary with volume. If you are going to use that concept in regard to the whole universe, you would need to know at least either the initial or at least some earlier temperature and volume and either the present temperature or volume. The present temperature appears to be roughly known, but the other variables are not known by man in this world at this time.

It is not a problem to me that you bring up such topics because I believe in searching for the truth in all aspects of reality, so some topics like consciousness or other aspects of how our minds work and religion, etc. (that might be considered taboo to those who have their minds closed in such areas) are perfectly acceptable topics for study to me. That you have through your intuition developed the concept that we are essentially individual cells of some deeper being is interesting because if you look at the Christian scriptures, especially the New Testament, it is evident that God is saying that he is using this world to make a body for himself with each of us given the choice to become a member (a part) of that body if we desire. The scriptures say that God made us in his image and since we are composed of a spirit that generates our intents, a soul that turns those intents into thoughts, and a body that turns the thoughts into physical actions, it would be expected that he would be composed of a similar structure. In the scriptures it says that God is a spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth, so that is the first part. It also says that there is one mediator between man and God, the man Christ Jesus. This places him in the position of our soul which is the mediator between our spirit and our body and translates the things from the spirit so that the body can understand them and translates those things from the body so that they are received by the spirit. As far as the ones who choose to become parts of his body are concerned, it says that in Christ we are many members, but one body, that Christ is the head of the body, and that God is the head of Christ. Another thing that I find interesting is that when we are conceived we get a part of our physical makeup from our mother through the information that is written into the DNA in the mother's egg and we get the rest from our father from the information that is written in the DNA in the father's sperm. The egg cannot generate a man's body on its own and the sperm doesn't do so either. It takes both joined together to generate a man's body. In the scriptures it says we must be born again. That our first birth is for the birth of our body, but this second birth is for the birth of our spirit. This implies that when we are born into this world we have both parts that are needed to have a whole body, but only half of the information needed for our spirit to be born. It appears that we have the half that communicates with and has the necessary information to take care of our body, but don't have the other half of the information that allows us to connect to and understand how to work as members of God's body. This only comes when we get the other information needed so that our spirit can be born of God. In the scriptures, Jesus says the words that I say unto you they are spirit and they are life. This indicates that the information needed for the birth of a complete spirit either is the scriptures or at least it is contained in the scriptures and that only by taking that information in can a man have all the necessary information to allow his spirit to be born so that he is complete. The ones that do not choose to become parts of his body are used as parts of the machinery to make the body, but in the end when the body is complete they will be destroyed along with the rest of this world because the body is being made to last without end so the manufacturing plant won't be needed any more after the body is complete. A new world will be made that is better than this one for God (in his body) to live in. It appears that in that world entropy will not exist as it does here because it says that when you make something it will continue and not deteriorate as things do here, as an example. I have always found it interesting how it is that the world is constructed in such a way that one thing will be made in the image of another thing so that even if we can't see what an atom looks like directly we have larger scale things in the world such as the solar system from which we can derive concepts that can be used to gain an understanding of the things that we cannot see directly. These kinds of things are interesting to me, but if they are not to you just let me know.

I don't have to get back to work, but I do need to get some sleep.......

I saw your P.S. just before I sent this so I will take a quick P.S. to your P.S., but don't expect too much as I am tired. If the photon that is generated from the wave front gets its energy level from the entire wave front and not just from the part of the wave front at the point of contact, the energy coming from the parts of the wave front that are lets say millions of miles away on the other side of the expanding wave front would have to travel faster than the speed of light or else it would take an extremely long time to generate the energy photon. Energy does not create or consume information. It only can change the specific values stored in an information entity by causing one value to increase while another value decreases, as an example.

Paul,

I think we have generally the same understanding of energy, vs. information, though I may not have stated it as completely. At the temperature of absolute zero, there is no motion, so that even if some fundamentally eternal particle exists, it would have no contact with any other such particle and thus not exist from the perspective of any other reference. So motion itself is more important to creating reality, than any potential underlaying particle. As far as we are concerned, form follows function. So whether it is noun or verb, the energy cannot exist if it doesn't express information and the information does not exist if it is not expressed by energy. This has implications for the question of whether there are fundamental Platonic laws underlaying the physical reality, to which I would argue no, since they would imply information that isn't expressed by energy. Yes there is an overall repetitive nature to law, as that's what defines it as law, but I think that is due to identical causes yielding identical results.

As for theology, while I grew up assuming a basic monotheism, it occurred to me that any truly absolute state couldn't be expressed as form, or it wouldn't be absolute, so that any form it might happen to express wouldn't necessarily be unique. Therefore should another planet exist in which life took hold, that wasn't otherwise connected to the life on this planet, it would amount to a separate entity. As a perpetuating organism, like the whole of life on this planet, it would amount to its own god. If you follow the history of theism, it grew out of the idea that the group was a larger organism, of which individuals were temporary manifestations. Polytheism developed, as these various grouping intermingled and hierarchies of gods evolved out of the hierarchies of groups. These then melded into larger groups and adopted larger, ostensibly monotheistic religions. While they all gravitated to the original deity of a particular group of Semites, the original Jews, they have followed different paths. This branching has created different coordinate systems which are not identical. Sort of like people on different points on the globe have different coordinate systems, using the same three dimensional concept. Each thinking theirs is the one true one. The Greeks adopted Christianity, because the fable of a martyred king provided an analogy for their tradition of the practice of sacrificing a "year king" at the spring festivals. That said, I do have a certain affinity for the triune Christian deity, since I see it as reflecting a conceptual dualism defining the whole. Such as absolute and infinite defining the extant. Past and future defining the present. Order and chaos defining complexity. Also that as the spiritual absolute is basis, not apex, it is more the child than the adult.

Personally I'm more of a Gaian, as I see this planet as the only real defining singular unit for humanity. I see human civilization as the emerging central nervous system of this planetary organism, as opposed to its current role as top predator in a collapsing ecosystem.

now I'm late for work again...

Paul,

"Notice there is no need for anything to go into the future to inform it to change the position information by some amount. If you know the motion amplitude information content you can use it to determine the position of the motion and the value of the position information at some point in the future, but it does not exist that way until that future point becomes the present. Likewise, as the position information content changes, its previous contents no longer exist and become a part of the past. Only the present actually ever exists. The information entities are all conserved. Only the content of the information within the entities can change. In this case it is the position information that changes within the position information entity."

I didn't mean to imply that information is transmitted into the future, but that waves can pull energy back toward them, as they build, much as the tsunami caused the tide to go out before it struck. I was specifically trying to understand how a creature might perceive a coming event, before it is obvious, without actually foretelling the future.

"Because normal light waves do not blue shift we can see that a light wave does not create tension as it expands as a balloon does. This means that it would be more like a gas that would just get thinner with fewer molecules per unit of space as it expands rather than some type of cohesive entity that would be bound together as a single unit and would exert tension on itself as it was stretched. This would be more in line with the idea of the wave front being composed of individual photons than just a solid wave front. Another thing that seems to me to be an indication of the photon concept is that because the wave weakens in relation to the square of the distance it would seem that a wave front that had traveled billions of light years would be too weak to be able to generate photons at the end of its travel. On the other hand, if photons were initially generated they would each continue to contain the same amount of energy (motion) as long as they did not interact with anything on the way to the destination. You would just see fewer photons the farther away you were from the source because they would be spread further apart."

A counter argument to this is that is would be very difficult to determine the exact point of origin for expanding gas atoms. On the other hand, if they expanded out as a circular wave, we would know where the center point of that wave is. Now we are only at one point on that wave, yet as the radiation is a constant process, the point where these waves crossed our detector would produce a constant point of light.

"If the photon that is generated from the wave front gets its energy level from the entire wave front and not just from the part of the wave front at the point of contact, the energy coming from the parts of the wave front that are lets say millions of miles away on the other side of the expanding wave front would have to travel faster than the speed of light or else it would take an extremely long time to generate the energy photon."

It would generate the energy from the area of contact, but could the specific photon be a reading of the wave front, which is stretched, not just the energy of the specific point of contact, since this wave is stretched before it makes contact? If the photon was only a function of the direct point of contact, would it still have the wave aspect? We detect it as a light particle, or quanta of light, but if it traveled from the source as a singular particle, would it really produce the wave effect in the way which it does?

As quanta of light, photons would be like drips of water which are similar in size, due to surface tension and gravity, but dissolve into a larger pool of water. Re; the idea of "entangled particles."

"If you are going to use that concept in regard to the whole universe, you would need to know at least either the initial or at least some earlier temperature and volume and either the present temperature or volume."

I was just using it as an accepted example of how temperature and volume correlate.

"Energy does not create or consume information. It only can change the specific values stored in an information entity by causing one value to increase while another value decreases, as an example."

Wouldn't that be an analog description of information content being adjusted, while the energy content remains the same? It's like the old saying that you can't have your cake and eat it too. The information of the whole cake is lost, while that of its taste is gained.

Better post this and study the situation some more.

Regards,

John

Dear Paul,

i saw your response of 19th to my post of 17th. Many thanks. I admire your concern for the humanity at large, as reflected in the response. But mind you, destiny is controlled by factors unknown and howsoever righteous one may be, it matters only if others respond in the same manner. I find no conflict between mine and your views in a broad sense. The details are bound to vary. To quote a young man of 20 years among us, Clinton "Kyle" Miller, what matters in life is this moment, as we can act only in it, neither in the past nor future. The latter two only can give us tension and anxiety, respectively. Also, thinking ourselves to be living in this world of ours that is certainly not of our making, why one need to worry much about calamities/tragedy. One can help others in overcoming them provided we act. Actions are possible in the present moment. Kindly see some of the postings on my essay as well as of that of Kyle and hopefully you and John Merryman will find others intersting too! Please ignore such specific requests, as i am just trying to emphasize that the world is not centred around us but the reverse is true!

Paul,

"As viewed from my viewpoint matter or structure is just the next step up from energy particles in a hierarchical structure of motions. Both matter (structure) and energy are completely composed of the most fundamental entity, which is motion."

I thought you would like this;

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html

John,

The idea that at absolute zero there is no motion is something that I have seen a lot lately, but it is not true. Absolute zero is the temperature at which no energy radiation occurs. If you don't take the extreme view that this means the point where all matter has decayed into energy and the energy has completely dissipated (empty space) in order to not have any energy radiation from decaying matter particles, it would usually be considered the point at which all matter particles in the system are at their lowest energy levels in atoms and the atoms are at their lowest energy levels in their molecules, etc., so that they will not drop to a lower level and radiate energy photons. In this condition there is still much motion in the system. First, each matter particle's fourth and fifth vector (dimensional) motions still exist, so the particles are all traveling in their enclosed paths. The electrons, protons, and neutrons are still moving within the atoms. These motions are generally considered to involve local transfers of photons and other particles within the atoms for various reasons to maintain the stability of the atoms. They generally just don't radiate outside of the atom. The atoms can still have some motions inside the molecules, etc. You are right that motion is more important to creating reality than any underlying particle because any underlying particle is composed of motion. An element of information can generally be looked at as a trait of a structure. Energy is a structure, so it contains information. The concept of information goes deeper than energy, however. As an example a dimensional system contains information even when it is empty of matter and energy because it contains information that is determined by its structure. Let's look at a simple bi-directional one-dimensional system for an explanation of what I mean. Because it is a bi-directional system, direction information is structurally a part of the system. If the dimension remains empty of motion, the directional information might never be expressed externally, but the potential still exists as a property or information element of the dimensional system. It is like saying that your microwave oven can heat food. If you never put any food in it and turn it on, it will never actually heat food, but it still possess the information of the ability to do so built into its structure. All spatial dimensional systems possess position information. This can vary from one infinitely small position in a zero dimension system to an infinite number of positions in a one-dimensional or larger system. If the dimension is long enough to contain at least two entities with some space between them, and is actually capable of containing such entities, other elements of potential information are generated. Just the ability to contain entities is information. Any dimensional system that can contain at least two entities with some space between them also generates such information concepts as distance (as the amount of space or separation between the entities.) Distance generates motion information as the way to change from one position to another position by traveling through the distance or separation between two entities. Some information elements are essentially passive as part of the structure or its capabilities and don't change from their initial conditions while other elements are active and can change often. The ability for a dimensional system to contain entities and the type of entities that it can contain are design functions that will usually remain constant during the existence of the dimensional system. Entity position and motion information for individual entities can change quite often, on the other hand. You can see then that information can exist as a part of a structure whether it is expressed in a way that we can detect it or not. As an example, the dimensional system of our world may have a great amount of behind the scenes structure and structural information that man cannot detect at this time. That would not mean that it did not exist merely because it is not expressed in a way that it can be presently detected by man. To put it another way, the inability to transfer or express information does not delete that information from existence. It merely becomes dormant. If you put a thermometer in a container that has matter in it at absolute zero, you will not get a reading on the thermometer because no free photons or matter particles will interact with it, but this does not mean that the matter in the container no longer exists, because of the lack of interaction expressed in a way that you can detect. In practice the matter particles would still be expressing information within the atoms and the atoms would be expressing information within molecules, etc. It would have just become a private local enclosed system of information transfer with you left outside of it. If you did not know that the container had matter in it you would not know of the existence of the matter in it, but that would not change its actual existence. It is true though that information in one system that is expressed to us can give us some knowledge about some of the information elements in another system, especially if the two systems are joined in some way like the entities that exist in the dimensional system are joined to the dimensional system and thus share some information elements with it. Since energy can only exist and function in the dimensional system in accordance with the structural information that is built into the dimensional system, it is apparent that there are fundamental laws or structural information elements that energy is subject to and must obey in order to exist as energy within the dimensional system. This information would exist as a part of the structure of the system whether or not energy was present in it or not. I will give one more example before leaving this subject for now. A flashlight is a system designed to generate photons in the visible light spectrum. If it is switched off, it will not generate those photons. The flashlight is still made of materials according to specific rules or laws that allow all of its parts to be assembled so that it is capable of generating photons even though it is not doing so. If you turn the flashlight on, it will generate photons and it may be that you can determine some of the details of the structure and rules or laws governing its generation of photons, but you may not be able to determine every detail of construction or the laws by which all the parts fit together and generate the photons from just viewing the outputted photon energy. This does not mean that the flashlight does not contain lead acid batteries of a specific plate size to allow it to generate a specific amount of total current through the bulb filament so the batteries will last for some specific designed in time period just because you might not be able to detect that level of detail of its structure from observing the emitted photons.

I grew up in a similar situation mostly in a catholic background where I was taught some things about God from their catechism, but was not actually introduced to the scriptures. I was told that God would answer our prayers and was disappointed when I asked God to do something for me that was important to me at the time, but it was not done. I then took the attitude that I did not have adequate proof that God either did or did not exist, although I tended to come down on the side of the predominate scientific theories of the day, which was the steady state theory of the universe and evolution. Because I have always desired to understand the world and how it works, I spent the next 22 years working to understand how and why things in the world work the way that they do. In those early days it was relatively easy to believe in the above theories because it took me quite awhile to get an in depth understanding of how the world works that was in any way more advanced than existing theories and those theories seemed to offer a possible alternative to God's existence because the steady state theory suggested that the world may have always existed and on the surface evolution seemed to describe how life forms could have developed because at that time not a great deal was known about the tremendous complexity of living creatures. As time went on the steady state theory was shown to be wrong and all indications were that the world had a beginning. This meant that it definitely was created. It was then only a matter of determining who or what created it. At the same time new information about living creatures was showing that they are much more complex than they had been believed to be earlier. Because the theory of evolution is based on changes occurring by chance mutations it is apparent that the more complex life structures are the more such changes would be necessary to generate the higher level of complexity observed. At the same time my studies into such things as entropy showed that the world outside of living creatures tends to actively work to break down such complex highly organized high potential energy structures. I also began to see that a great amount of genetic variability was built into the structure of living beings so that great changes in a given creature can occur to allow it to adapt to its environment without the need for any mutations. This can be seen in the great diversity in the variations that have been produced in dogs due to breeding them for specific traits that are already built into their DNA structure with no need for new changes to occur through mutations. In addition, it looked like living creatures have the built in ability to dynamically modify specific traits while they are still alive thus allowing a creature to adapt to some changes during its life time. It has recently been discovered by man, as an example, that the body has the ability to turn certain genes on or off to generate changes to adapt to environmental changes and that these changes can then be passed down to offspring in addition to the basic DNA information. Because of the large amount of DNA structure that is still considered to be junk DNA (man's usual response to things that are not understood) it is likely that many other similar mechanisms still wait to be discovered. Much of the variation that has been in the past attributed to evolution by many has turned out to be just due to these built in adaptation structures. It is likely that even such things as a virus' ability to change its appearance to the bodies defense mechanisms so that it is not recognized and attacked are due at least for the most part to these built in variability structures. This means that small incremental changes due to mutations would create no advantage to a living creature that had them if they are within the built in adaptation variability of the creature. As an example, if an environmental change occurs that can be compensated for by the creatures built in variability, a change caused by a mutation that would also allow the creature to survive the environmental change would create no natural selection advantage for the creature that had the mutation because all of the creatures would survive with or without the mutation. This would mean that small incremental changes would likely die out or at least not be widely spread. Large changes due to mutations still could occur, but it has been understood for a long time that such larger changes are less likely to occur and the ones that do occur are more likely to also include negative traits that would threaten survival. This much greater structural complexity than had previously been thought to exist along with the much greater built in adaptation ability than had previously been conceived of by man, makes it extremely unlikely that all of the much greater number of changes than had previously been understood to be needed to account for all of the variations in living creatures could happen within the already long time periods that had been predicted to be necessary for them to occur in. These changes in the depth of knowledge and others also that I can't go into now make evolution such a long shot that it would require much greater blind faith to continue to believe in evolution to describe all the variation in living creatures than to believe in God as the source of them. At the same time I began to consider something that science seemed to be largely ignoring, which was the cause of the first living creature. There had been some experiments that attempted to create the environment that was believed to exist in the world when it was presumed that life began on earth. These experiments had produced some basic complex molecules, but nothing close to the complexity of a DNA molecule that contains the structural code of even the simplest life forms and this was not the result of mere chance, but the purposeful attempts of the most intelligent beings from this planet. Beings that like to build complex structures. I believe that man has not yet been able to make such a DNA molecule from the base materials without using life structures in some way. For some reason, I do not see much about any recent attempts to generate life experimentally and no positive results. It may be that those involved decided that it would be a hopeless waste of time. The first problem with the idea of the spontaneous generation of the first living creature is that to even generate the most simple form of life that could reproduce, would require a large number of complex molecular structures to all just happen to come about by chance at about the same time in the same place and come together and generate a living creature in a very short time before they were destroyed by the environment. When life seemed to be much simpler than it is known to be today, that did not seem too far out, but even given man's limited knowledge at this time of the true ultimate complexity of living creatures it would be too improbable to be considered a viable scientific theory by anyone unless it was just an attempt to support some illogical belief system. The second problem comes from looking at the proposition of spontaneous generation of life from the other side, which is that if perchance some how the probability to generate the first living creature, was within the range that would allow it to happen, we should see many new life forms coming about today from all the at least millions of piles of DNA molecules and the other complex molecules needed to produce living creatures that are deposited at various places all around the earth when living creatures die in the wild. This is because the part of producing the first living creature that would be the most improbable would be the creation by the natural environment of all the necessary component parts at about the same time in the same place. The actual joining of the components into the living creature would have to happen in a short time before the parts were destroyed by the environment. One explanation for the fact that we do not see new living creatures springing up from all this ready made material is that living creatures eat them up first or that the atmosphere, etc. is now different in such a way as to prevent it from happening. It would seem that a simple experiment could be performed to see if this is the case or not. First a room or vessel of some sort would be prepared that would contain the atmosphere and other environmental variables set to the values that are believed to be the least likely to destroy the life structures and at the same time allow the greatest chance for them to come together to generate a life form. Any life forms that may have accidentally gotten into the vessel would then be killed. Then some very simple life form would be grown in a large quantity and then killed in such a way as to not destroy the life material. The life material thus prepared would be placed into the vessel. One would then expect new life forms to come from this material in a short time. My guess is that this experiment will never be tried (at least not publically) because the forgone conclusion would be that it would fail to produce life. The same problem exists concerning the creation of the universe in that all of the theories break down before you get all the way back to the moment of initial creation except for the theory that the universe was created by God. The only other current theories that attempt to go to a point before the creation of our universe are the multiverse/megaverse/landscape theories that are based on the idea that there exists some large place that has always existed that creates large numbers of universes that exist for some time and then go back out of existence. This is just a rehash of the steady state universe concept on a larger scale with the always existing part moved out of the range of scientific observation and testing. These theories are therefore not true scientific theories, but unprovable philosophical hypotheses that would have no more scientific basis than the concept that God created the universe. They are in essence the atheist's creation story. Before these current theories were developed I came to the conclusion that the scientific theories that then existed all broke down before getting back to the moment of creation and that if I ignored that problem the problem still existed that the natural world without life would not have created life. At about that time I came to the conclusion that the basic structure behind the energy and matter that makes up our world would require a dimensional system with five dimensions. I figured that for binary symmetry there would likely actually be eight dimensions though the matter and energy that makes up our world would not participate in the top three dimensions. Not long after that I had a day that I had very little to do and so I thought I would amuse myself by looking at my wife's copy of the scriptures. I just happened to open it up to the book of the revelation of Jesus Christ and to my amazement I found that the descriptions of the heavens and the earth exhibited the same patterns of structure that I thought I had discovered myself and that I could find no other person who had any knowledge of this structure, but here it was in a book that had been written about two thousand years ago. This got me interested so I began to read the whole scriptures and found more information in the book of Ezekiel that also agreed with the concepts that I had discovered. The main difference between the two accounts is that Ezekiel saw the heavens looking up at them from the earth while John was taken up to heaven and saw them from that perspective. The two different perspectives should have caused some differences in what they saw and that is exactly what is recorded in the scriptures. I also found the creation account in Genesis interesting because it included that God's first action after creating the empty earth system was to introduce motion into it, etc. There are many other things such as patterns of behavior of people and basic concepts of how one can be more sure that something is true, etc. that I tested to see if they work and found that they do work as described in the scriptures. There are also many prophecies that make predictions about things that will come to pass and the ones that are supposed to have already come to pass have done so. I have looked at some other religion's books and have not found such things and as I described above the atheist doctrines don't have the answers either. To look at a planet's life structure as an overall organism composed of all of the individual life forms entwined by their interactions with each other is not a bad concept, but I could never consider it to be a god to me. To me only the God that is over and greater than all other gods would be worthy of worship or to serve. He would have to be intelligent as it would not make sense to serve some mindless chance mechanism or some generalized force. His intelligence would have to be greater than mine. He would have to possess the ability to continue his existence without end because it would not make sense to worship someone that could die before you and since it would be desirable for him to preserve my life endlessly also beyond the life in this world he would need to possess great or preferably all power so there would not be something greater than him that he could not protect himself and me from. He would have to actually care for me as it would not do much good to serve someone that hated me and would desire to destroy me or was indifferent to me and would not save me. He would have to know all things so he would not unknowingly tell me to do something that would lead to my or his destruction or even great suffering with no gain worthy of the suffering. As you can see just from these requirements the earth life system falls greatly short of being worthy to be worshipped as God with the big G and the ones with the small g are not truly worthy because they cannot control all things for our benefit or his. The earth life system could easily be destroyed if the sun exploded or if the earth was hit by a large enough meteor, etc. so it really can't protect us. I am not sure where you got your history of theism, but it differs greatly from what I have seen in this world. First the belief in a god or gods is usually attributed in most nonreligious sources that I have looked at to the fact that early people saw that they lived in a world in which they had very little control over their lives. As an example, their lives were very dependent on their ability gather enough food to stay alive and be healthy, but if there was not enough rain at the right times or not enough sunny days at the right times the plants that provided food for them and there animals would either dry up and not produce food or not grow fast enough to produce enough food for their needs. This caused them to begin to worship the sun and rain gods, etc. that they made up with the hope that they would give them good crops, etc. If a particular leader or conqueror developed great power he might also be worshipped as a god and this likely had a lot to do with the development of the Greek and Roman gods that were based on gods with the personalities, weaknesses, and other traits and actions of men. The Gaian type of thinking of the world as some overall organism as a source of power did not greatly come into play until somewhat later as a part of witchcraft traditions and doctrines. The three main monotheistic religions all trace the connection of man to God back to Abraham and before that all the way back to the first man Adam. According to the Old Testament man originally knew God and lived in his presence until Adam and Eve sinned and were cast out of the Garden of Eden so they would not eat of the tree of life and live forever. God still dealt directly with men that were righteous and desired to serve him such as Abraham, and his son Isaac, and his son Jacob who was later called Israel by God. Later when God worked directly with Moses to bring the people of Israel out of Egypt he gave the Old Testament laws to Moses who then gave them to the people of Israel. The scriptures, therefore, give a different picture of religion's development in that man originally knew God and knew that he is the only true God, but as people began to leave God to do their own desires they made up many false gods. In the scriptures God makes fun of them by saying that they would cut down a tree and carve a god out of part of it to worship and would then cast the rest of the tree into the fire so how was that piece of a tree that they threw into the fire any more special than the part that they destroyed in the fire or how could it save them. In the New Testament God gives a more detailed description of what happens when someone that knows God goes away from him. In the first of the three steps of a man leaving God he stops thanking God and glorifying him for what he has done for the man. He then goes off into his own imagination and begins to think of God as if he is a man or some animal and makes false gods to worship. The third and last step occurs when the man does not desire to keep God in his remembrance any more so God then gives him over to a reprobate spirit (Satan) and he then does all kinds of evil as a follower of the Devil. These are the true atheists. My wife once told me that she always wondered why those that do not believe in God seemed to be so intent on removing anything about God from public view or mention and were not just satisfied to live their lives according to their beliefs and respect believer's rights to live their lives according to their beliefs also. I showed her that God made it so that the last step of leaving God was to desire to not keep God in their remembrance so anything that would remind them Of God would be offensive to them and they could not be otherwise because it is built into the creation of which they are a part to work that way. It is easy to see why those that take the first step away from God would divide into many different branches because although only one truth in all things exists, there are at least a very large number (possibly an infinite number) of falsehoods that can be imagined in one's mind. It is interesting that you apparently regard the life of Jesus Christ as just a fable when the historical data that establishes the fact that he did in reality live is much stronger than that for many others that people accept as having existed without doubt. His existence is recorded not only in the scriptures, but in other early secular history sources as well.

My guess is that if you lived long enough you would change your view somewhat because if man eventually expands throughout the solar system you would probably replace this planet with this solar system in the same way that earlier people would have limited such statements to the more limited parts of the planet that they knew about and had the ability to gain control over or at least access to. We all live in a cage within a cage within a cage, etc. type of an environment and our beliefs and concepts are limited to the parts of the overall cage that we have the keys to so that we have access to those parts of the whole cage. Anyone that has gained access to a larger part of the whole structure than others also gains a wider range and depth of concepts and more assurance of true beliefs while receiving more evidence to allow the rejection of false beliefs. I have found that this planet is only a very small part of a much larger system that when it is more understood leads to a greater understanding of the true origin of the organization of structures that it is composed of.

Now I'm late for sleep again... I will try to answer your Nov. 22 entry tomorrow if I can get access to the computer.

Dear Paul,

i must say going through your last post was quite a bit of strain for my eyes. Your long justification for the existence of God or not is just a personal matter for you or any other individual. What i may like to tell you will be to let you know that you are human being with both rationality and emotionality components like any one else. Our behaviour is not governed by science although we do govern the science as we create it through our ingenuity.

The other point i wish to bring to your attention concern the awesome size and energy content of the Universe. Just compare your existence with it.It humbles us all if not you. The word God is also a human creation as God is not a somebody like us who has created all this for us to worry about! Let me suggest that you opt for 'consciousness', cosmic and individual and recognize that some connection exists between the two. The whole creation involves 'motion/vibrations' of some sort and that becomes 'physical' forus to deal in science. The rest is nonphysical consciousness. As you see the logical pattern in the evolution of the Universe, you will appreciate the 'Creator' if any. Names don't matter. he immense energy, the logical pattern with gradual coming of different celestial objects, then earth and then air , water, plants/trees and then animals and last of all the Humans. Only we are able to comprehend the secrets of nature. We are born not out of our own desire and we also die not as per our wish. We only can live by our wish!

Just to end, let me tell you that there are some secular religions too in this world, may not be in the west to which you may happen to belong, but in the east. True religion to me is the one that one practices in his actions and not what he may belong to o/c birth or for any other reason! names don't matter here too.

I hope you had a good sleep and are no too worried to let John know more of what you feel like telling him and take tension of access to computer! Relaxation of mind is very essential for the contributions that one may make towards the good of humanity and the environment we all live in!

John,

Sorry I couldn't get at the computer yesterday due to other things coming up. Also I noticed after I sent it that I kind of got carried away on my history and made a very long comment you don't need to regard or comment on all of it. It just sort of flowed out and I was tired at the time. I'll try to be more restrictive in the future. Now to answer your Nov. 22 comment.

In nature there are many such things that can give advance notice of some event that is coming, such as a sudden change in temperature or the smell of water in the air before a storm arrives. Most can be looked at as just the beginning effects of the event. You are right that people often concentrate so much on other things that they don't pick up on these beginning effects. In the case of the water receding before the tsunami wave arrives it is the result of the limited medium in which the wave travels. The wave forms in the somewhat cohesive medium of water molecules in the liquid form. As the wave height rises the water to fill up that height must come from somewhere, so it is drawn from the surrounding water. This causes the surrounding water level to go down including the water in front of the wave. If light waves do not travel through a medium, one would not expect to see that effect with light waves.

It probably would be difficult to determine the point of origin from expanding gas atoms because they would likely interact with each other in the wave front so that their directions of travel could be different after awhile from their original directions away from the point of origin. Light photons, however, would not as likely interact with each other in such a way as to alter their directions. It is evident, however, that some interaction does occur because a beam of light does tend to spread out to some extent as it travels. Any photon that traveled all the way from its source to a destination interaction without any other interactions on the way would still contain the directional information within it that could be traveled back upon to its source. A continuous flow of photons would produce a similar constant point of light. There would just be fewer photons passing a given point the farther the point was from the source because of the increased volume that they would occupy on the expanding front. Photons that were emitted later would not necessarily line up with the ones in front of them, so if there was a space between two photons due to the expansion such that the measurement point was between them, the next layer of photons could have a photon that would be in the space that was between the previous photons that missed the detector so that it would interact with the detector. The detector would just see fewer photons the farther away it was from the detector because in some layers of photons a space rather than a photon would pass the detector.

If the wave front was composed in such a way that it was cohesive and would stretch, one would expect to see the blue shift on any standard wave front. More over a stretched wave front would store an increased amount of energy the more it was stretched and it would, therefore, generate either more or more energetic (higher frequency) photons in an interaction the farther the wave front was from its origin due to the increased stretching due to the wave front's expansion. One would also expect that at some point the wave front would either break or would run out of energy to cause further expansion and would then collapse back toward the source. Each photon contains the wave effect within itself in its fourth dimensional motion. As it travels at the speed of light in the first three dimensions, it also travels in and out of the first three dimensional structure through the fourth dimension. This generates what is seen as the frequency, wavelength, and variable mass effect that is known as the wave effect.

Although you have not told me the interaction details of how the wave front would generate photons, it would seem to me that if you aimed a very weak light source wave (one that would only generate a few sensor hits per second) at the top of a sensor array that was built in a step shape with a sensor at the top and a sensor on each step so that the top sensor was closest to the oncoming wave front and each successive step was farther away from the wave front than the step before it, one would expect that the wave would be the strongest when it reached the sensor on the top step and would be most likely to interact with it. The interactions would proceed down the steps until the wave was too weak to generate further photons. The sensors on the top step would detect more photons than the ones toward the bottom because the wave front would have more energy when it interacted with them. I believe that if you did this experiment you would find that the photons that were sensed would not be distributed in that way, but would likely be more evenly distributed on the sensors, which would be expected if individual photons were emitted, especially if the source was aimed at the lowest step, which should not affect the results if you had an expanding wave front that would still hit the top step first even if the source was not directly aimed at it.

In that case you are right that if you increase the volume of a container and all other variables remain the same (i.e. no increase in energy added to the container, etc.), the temperature inside the container will drop unless it is already at absolute zero. Sorry I thought you were thinking of a wider context.

The information entities (roughly the storage places for information) and the information that is in them that are a part of the structure of the dimensional system can not be changed by the motion entities that exist in that structure. As an example, the motion entities cannot change how the dimensions interact with one another (i.e. the first three dimensions intersect at ninety degree angles, etc.) or change a bi-directional dimension into a unidirectional dimension. All entities that exist in the dimensional system are structures composed of motions. Each motion contains certain information entities that define the motion. Such an information entity can contain a variable that can be changed from one information content to another. In the absence of an interaction of some type, all motion entity's information entities remain the same and the information entity's information contents also remain the same except for variables such as position that are changed by the contents of other information entities such as motion amplitude that are a part of that specific motion's information set. When an interaction occurs between two motions, the information contents of both motion entities' information entity's can be combined in

Narendra,

Your Nov. 23 comment

You are right that destiny is controlled to various degrees by others, but ultimately it is controlled by the one at the top no matter what others do. My position is to make it easier for the others if possible to accept the necessary changes that will happen. You are also right that we can only act in the present. The information that we have stored of the past can be a guide to help us take the best present actions and wise intents for the future can help to carry those actions to completion. Not worry, plan and work to avoid them. Yes present action is needed. Yes the world is not centered around us, it is centered on the one that made it and rightly so.

Your Nov. 24 comment

You are right I did get carried away with my history and where it has led me, at least the part that I could give. I was tired at the time and it just seemed to flow out. Maybe there is some reason for someone who will read it. You never know what the whole purpose of such a thing is, at least until later. I hope your eyes were not too strained. You can always feel free to ignore my works if they are too much or you could do a little at a time if you want. I am trying to make this comment to you shorter for your sake. You are right that each person must choose for himself whether to believe in God. It is always best to give to others as much information as possible to help them make an intelligent choice. Our behavior is not governed by science, but it is governed somewhat by the laws that are written into the creation some of which have been given to man to understand by the use of the tool of science often guided by the insights that are given to men from above.

You are right about the awesome size and energy content of the universe. It points out the even greater awesome ability and power (energy content) of the one who took a small part of himself and made it. It should truly humble all of us to be able to be his. You are right that he has not made all this for us to worry about. He has made all this to make us and allow us to be joined to him as members of his body (the true connection between the two). Can this cosmic consciousness that you speak of generate intents to do something and then translate those intents into thoughts and then translate those thoughts into actions in the world to do anything? Yes all of the entities (whether energy or matter) in the creation are composed of motions. Yes there is also the spirit which is not made of these things. Yes looking at the creator's creation even to the low level that I have attained to does make me appreciate the creator more and more as he shows me more about his creation and himself. Names and other words do matter because he has made and chosen them as one way to communicate himself to us and given us as his image to do the same to each other. I won't go into the order of things at this time to keep it short. He has given us greater understanding than the other creatures of the earth. You are right that he did not give us to control our birth or death. It is best to live as he wishes!

Yes there are secular religions. Even a disbelief in God is a form of religion in which a man puts himself or something else up as the highest in the world (his god) for him to serve (worship) instead of God. You are right that one who possesses the true religion will show it in his words and also in all his other actions and you cannot be born into it by your birth in the flesh. You must make the choice yourself. Again, names matter because he has made them and applied them. It is for us to accept his works. You are right though that names that we make up do not matter and to attempt to change the names he has chosen to others that we make up will only cause separation from him.

Thank you I did have a good sleep, but other things kept me off the computer yesterday. I don't worry. I just do what is given to me to do. John will be able to abide if it is for him to do so.

Dear Paul,

Your post in my response indicates that you are in agreement with me on nearly all the issues. Please continue to hold on to your unique identity but also conserve your energy for helping others understand you better. he best way i find is to set personal examples through one's actions in life, big or small.It is true in both our personal and professional activity in sciences.We are both in a similar state, having retired from active professional career. But we certainly can provide our experience and knowledge to ones who sincerely seek the same from us, not otherwise. Otherwise we only tire ourself without benefiting the others.