Tomorrow's Science Today by Rodney Bartlett - HTML preview
Download the book in PDF, ePub, Kindle for a complete version.
Tomorrow’s Science Today: Part 2 of 3
Intergalactic And Time Travel, Einstein's Relativity, Bohr's Atomic Model, Dark Matter, Dark And Negative Energy, String Theory / Unification, The Law Of Conservation, And Combining Newtonian And Relativistic Gravity With Standing Waves And Quantum Probability Waves
Implications For Religion And Philosophy As Well As Everyday Life In The Light Of The Concept of an Electronic And Holographic Universe Shaped Like A Mobius Loop
The Moon Is New (a book by John Dobson – Berbeo Publishing, 2008) has the potential to completely change our understanding of the universe. On page 14, it‘s stated that Einstein‘s equation (E=mc squared) says that mass and energy are the same thing … and The c squared is just how many ergs are equal to one gram (making the equation E=m). In pages 38- 40, the book asks … how many centimeters (are) equal to a second. That ratio, what is known in the trade as the speed of light, is about 30 billion centimeters to a second. This question, and these pages, could lead to us saying space and time are the same thing. But as the book tells us on p. 38, … time is the opposite of space in the geometry of this world … and … the space and time separations between (any) two events are equal and the total spacetime separation is, therefore, zero. Suppose a star we are viewing is at a distance of 100 light years (this can be represented as +100). Since we see nothing as it presently is but as it was when the light left it, we are seeing the star as it was 100 years ago (represented as the opposite of space i.e. as -100). Repeated experimental verification of Einstein‘s Relativity theory confirms its statement that space and time can never exist separately but form what is known as space-time. The space-time distance between us and the star is therefore 100 + (-100) i.e. 100-100 i.e. 0 and there is actually zero separation between us and the star‘s gravity, heat etc.
So saying space and time are equivalent (equal or the same thing) is incomplete and, to be accurate, we need to say space-time separation is equal (and zero). This possibly explains cosmic unification and because the inversesquare law of famous English scientist Isaac Newton (1642-1727) says the force between two particles is infinite if the distance of separation goes to zero; also possibly explains the
existence of an all-powerful, and super-intelligent (since those particles could be brain particles), God.
Is it also incomplete to say mass and energy are the same thing? Yes. We can add c squared to E=m. But we can think differently and think of E=m as 10=10 exponent 1. To make the equation totally complete, we must add
something without altering the meaning e.g. by writing 10=10 exponent 1+0. Now we have E=m exponent 1+0 (in the BASIC programming language, E=m ^ 1+0). Where do we find 1‘s and 0‘s? In the binary language used by computers. Does this mean the Underlying Existence spoken of in the book is energy as the book suggests– but to be more specific, the energy of a computer (perhaps a quantum supercomputer) processing?
Maybe this quantum supercomputer resides in the same place as the purported Big Bang. Science says the Big Bang created all the matter and energy in the universe– if a quantum supercomputer exists in that place, we could indeed say that all matter and energy is
computer-generated. Carl Sagan (who was an American astronomer, astrophysicist,
cosmologist and author) said there is no centre to the universe where the Big Bang could have taken place and initiated expansion. Therefore, the Big Bang (and for our purposes, the quantum supercomputer) would exist outside space and time in what we might call 5th dimensional hyperspace. Page 34 suggests … the rest mass of the proton (is) just the energy represented by its separation … from all the rest of the matter in the … universe. Since that separation is zero, the universe must be unified with each of its constituent subatomic particles and those particles must follow the rules of fractal geometry being similarly composed of space and time and hyperspace. This is another challenge to our senses– like their being zero separation between us and a star‘s gravity, heat etc. – that is possible if we live in a holographic universe (combining gravitational with electromagnetic waves) controlled by the magic of computers.
Carl SaganE=m ^ 1+0 is E=mc2 for the 21st century
Does the simple modification of E=mc2 (E=mc ^ 2) to E=m exponent 1+0 (E=m ^ 1+0) extend Albert Einstein‘s genius, which he claimed was not genius but intense curiosity and imagination, infinitely beyond the 20th century?
Removing E=m from both equations means c2 (to be precise, c ^ 2) = ^ 1+0
Multiplying each side by base n (any number) gives us
nc2 = n^1+0 i.e. nc2= n
Dividing both sides by n gives c2 = 1, therefore c also equals 1
Tradition says c is the speed of light. If c has the same value as c ^ 2 then the velocity of light in a vacuum must be a universal constant and since it cannot change, space-time has to warp:producing things like gravity, gravitational lenses, black holes and time travel.
Solving E=mc2 for mass (m) results in m=E/c ^ 2 Since c ^2= ^1+0
m = E/^ 1+0
Multiplying each part of each element by base n: nm = nE/n ^ 1+0
nm = nE/n
m= E/1= E
Therefore, the mass of the expanding universe can be thought of as pure energy.
If we interpret m=E (1m=1E) as meaning all the mass and energy in the universe forms a unit, we won‘t be able to think of any of the masses and energies composing the universe as separate. Every planet, star, magnet, beam of light, etc. would be part of a unification* comparable to a hologram (but a very special hologram, including all forms of electromagnetism as well as gravitational waves which give objects mass. In September 2008, renowned British astrophysicist Professor Stephen Hawking bet US$100 that the Large Hadron Collider would not find the Higgs boson, a theoretical particle supposed to explain how other particles acquire mass. Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves, and measurements on the
Hulse-Taylor binary-star system resulted in Russell Hulse and Joe Taylor being awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1993 for their work, which was the first indirect evidence for gravitational waves).
* (Our brains and minds are part of this unification too, which must mean extrasensory perception and telekinetic independence from technology are possible, despite modern science‘s objections which appear to be based on non-unification.)
Medal awarded in Nobel Prize The seeming fact that particles can communicate instantly over billions of light years (are entangled
- a process that appears to have operated in the entire universe forever) also seems to support the holographic principle and makes these lines relevant - another effect of the universe being a unification having zero separation is that
experiments in quantum mechanics would show that subatomic particles instantly share
information even if physically separated by many light years (experiments conducted since the 1980s repeatedly confirm this strange finding). This is explicable as 2 objects or particles only appearing to be 2 things in an objective, out there universe (Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli‘s exclusion principle – which was discovered in 1925 and says 2 matter particles cannot have both the same position and the same velocity– only applies in an objective universe and therefore allows past and future versions of the universe [which is not what we see and therefore not objective] to exist simultaneously with the present one … though programming in the cosmic computer does include it as applicable to the reality we perceive since that appears objective). They‘d actually be 1 thing in a unified,
everything is everywhere and everywhen universe. If the universe is a hologram with each part containing information about the whole, the instant
sharing of information over many light-years loses its mystery. And we‘ll see that time travellers from our future could return to the time of our Big Bang and make this a computer-generated hologram* in which things appear distant from each other on a huge screen but are also unified by the strings of ones and zeros making up the computer code which is all in one small place. And objects in the universal hologram would not only include the screens of our computers, TVs and mobile phones but every physical and nonphysical part of the universal hologram would be a receptor for the downloading of data from the Quantum
Supercomputer (in otherwords, a screen for displaying data).
* According to Wikipedia, Computer Generated Holography (CGH) is the method of digitally generating holographic interference patterns. A holographic image can be generated e.g. by digitally computing a holographic interference pattern and printing it onto a mask or film for subsequent illumination by suitable coherent light source. On the other hand, if holographic data of existing objects is generated optically, but digitally recorded and processed, and brought to display subsequently, this is termed CGH as well.
The attractive screens of
computers and mobiles
Page 179 of The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow– Bantam Press 2010, says (the positive energy of a body) means that one has to do work to assemble the body. Does this mean the positive component of the Cosmic-Quantum Union refers to an actual computer performing work by sending out the binary digits of 1 and 0 (in hyperspace) while its negative component refers to the universe being like a dream, and to binary digits that are transmitted by telekinetic independence from technology. In 1928 English physicist Paul Dirac (1902-84) proposed that all negative energy states are already occupied by (then) hypothetical antiparticles (particles of antimatter)– Workings of the Universe, a book in the series Voyage Through The Universe, by Time-Life Books 1992. Recalling the proposal of English scientist Professor Roger Penrose of quantum functioning of the brain, this has ramifications for the
subatomic particles called mesons which bind protons and neutrons together to form the atomic nucleus, in much the same way that gluons are said to bind together quarks which are said to be the constituents of protons and neutrons. Mesons are always composed of a quark-antiquark pair i.e. of a positive energy-negative energy pair. So when we‘re dreaming and our brains are using negative energy, they‘re not merely using a much lower degree of positive energy to do work but the antiparticles in them are free of the inhibitions that accompany our waking activities and are receiving greater expression, allowing us to do work literally effortlessly and to accomplish feats, like appearing "anywhere and everywhere", that would be thought of as miracles while we‘re awake.
Page 180 of The Grand Design says Because gravity is attractive, gravitational energy is negative. Since there was no gravitation in our universe prior to the Big Bang (we didn‘t even have a universe), this sentence can be combined with the backward causality (effects
influencing causes) promoted by Yakir Aharonov, John Cramer and others to explain that gravity‘s negative energy gives us no reason to think that bodies could not appear anywhere and
everywhere – as Professors Hawking and Mlodinow put it Bodies such as stars or black holes* cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can. Maybe it‘s only
playing with words, but I‘d regard gravity as repulsive instead of attractive (its energy would then be positive like matter‘s, matter and gravitational waves would be unified, and the universe could be more than a vast collection of the countless photons, electrons and other quantum particles within it; it could be a unified whole that has particles and waves built into its union plausibly, of digital 1‘s and 0‘s like the reality simulating games SIMS and SECOND LIFE (or its union of qubits – quantum binary digits). And the article Gravitation by Robert F. P aton in World Book Encyclopedia 1967 agrees that gravity is repulsive:
Einstein says that bodies do not attract each other at a distance. Objects that fall to the earth, for example, are not pulled‘ by the earth. The curvature of space time around the earth forces the objects to take the direction on toward the earth. The objects are pushed toward the earth by the gravitational field rather than pulled by the earth.
Repelling gravity would cause the universe to expand– astronomer Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) confirmed this expansion in 1929– and adding repelling gravity by continual "creation" (actually, recycling) of matter via the small amount from a preceding local area of the universe which is used to initiate expansion of its successor (or by dreaming and our brains using negative energy and antiparticles in them to do work effortlessly and to accomplish feats that would be thought of as miracles while we‘re awake) would cause it to expand at an accelerated rate– this acceleration was discovered in 1998 by observations carried out by the High-z Supernova Search Team and the Supernova Cosmology Project, has been confirmed several times and is claimed to be caused by mysterious dark energy.
* On the subject of black holes, I‘d like to write a couple of paragraphs showing how zero
separation can physically link sunspots and black holes (regions of space that can be formed by collapse of massive stars and have such a powerful gravitational field that nothing inside the event horizon or boundary, including light and other radiation, can escape), making
comparison of the two by no means a superficial one. Why do young stars form around a black hole when they should be torn apart? Compare the black hole to a sunspot. Sunspots form because the sun's equator rotates more quickly than its poles (25 days at the equator, 34 days at the poles). Being frozen into its gases, the magnetic field lines of the sun stretch, twist, are drawn out into loops and erupt through the sun's surface, forming sunspots. Since the intense magnetism of the spots prevents heat from rising to the surface and radiating into space, the Maunder Minimum of observations of extremely low sunspot activity from 1645 to 1715 (named
after the solar astronomer Edward W. Maunder [1851-1928] ) could actually be attributed to a period of intense sunspot activity. Why? Because a great number of sunspots would stop the Earth receiving as much warmth from the Sun, and the Maunder Minimum coincided with the middle– and coldest part– of the Little Ice Age during which Europe and North America and perhaps much of the rest of the world saw glaciers advance and rivers freeze– even the Baltic Sea froze over, allowing sledge rides from Poland to Sweden with inns built along the way. It would be termed a period of minimum activity coz the sunspots would not have been visible. The distorted magnetic loops don't have to break through the sun's surface or photosphere but can remain within, forming a rotating vortex that concentrates field lines and can create intense, heat trapping magnetism (info from recent observations by the satellite SOHO, the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory.) How does magnetism trap heat? Magnetic waves converge from opposite directions and constructively interfere to produce a wave packet (a wave packet is a short "burst" or "envelope" of wave action that travels as a unit, and is interpreted by quantum mechanics as a probability wave describing the probability that a particle will have a given position and momentum). When they converge, they act like 2 hands coming together and catching a ball. Actually, photons are absorbed and emitted just as in laser cooling but instead of a laser beam slowing down atoms, the envelope slows (and traps) infrared photons.
When a black hole is rotating; it might also stretch, twist and loop its magnetic field lines. The lines may penetrate into the hole and be lost, but in the case of star formation they'd be drawn out beyond the hole's event horizon (boundary) and compress clouds of dust and gas into new suns (a
supermassive black hole‘s magnetic field is so strong that it can focus particles into jets ejected far out into space so, provided the star is a safe distance from the black hole, it should be able to stop the hole‘s gravity from shredding a star and making its gases spiral inwards). To condense the paragraphs on zero separation into a few words, the 2 objects which appear
distant from each other could be a sunspot and a black hole. On the subject of sunspots and the sun, the famous 17th-century scientist Sir Isaac Newton once said the entire universe would instantly feel the loss of the sun‘s gravity if our star disappeared suddenly– I think modern science doubts this but zero separation forces me to agree with him. And on the subject of black holes, a massive star truly can collapse and explode as a supernova while a gravitational singularity (the place all matter falling into the black hole gathers) would be produced from the collapsing core. What if that singularity is disintegrated by the fantastic pressure? It would become BITS of space-time (this book‘s proposed building blocks of all matter and spacetime that are the BInary digiTS– strings of ones and zeros – from which space and time emerge). In this way, nature would protect us from black holes (as Einstein believed it would) and eliminate their assumed and perplexing properties of infinite density, infinite gravity and infinite spacetime curvature.
(Demonstrating zero separation to be relevant to the universe astronomers study requires a bit of research to get the astronomical facts right, so thanks go to the May 2009 interviewin Discover science magazine with professor of astronomy and physics Andrea Ghez; the 2006? TV documentary The Sun; Wikipedia, the free Internet encyclopedia; The Sun, a 1989 volume in TimeLife‘s series Voyage Through The Universe, Stephen Hawking‘s 1988 book A Brief History of Time and Patrick Moore‘s 1986 book A-Z of Astronomy)
Light can attract and repel itself like electric charges and magnets (according to Discover magazine‘s "Top 100 Stories of 2009 #83: Like Magnets, Light Can Attract and Repel Itself" by Stephen Ornes, from the January-February 2010 special issue; published online December 21, 2009 - in July 2009, electrical engineer Hong Tang and his team at Yale University in the USA demonstrated that, on silicon chip-and transistorscales, light can attract and repel itself like electric charges/magnets). Therefore, it must be true to say electrically charged particles and magnets can attract and repel like light (electric/magnetic attraction/repulsion would,
similarly to light, occur only on microscopic scales if the universe did not have an electronic foundation in which it was composed of silicon chip- and transistor-scales: more will be said about this later). We have known for ages they attract/repel – but now we know they do it like light, can we extend this phenomenon from quantum mechanics‘ wave-particle duality (in the case of electric charges and light) to universewide wave-particle duality (in the case of magnets and light)? If the magnets we can see and touch behave like light, is it not possible that every object in the universe (from a small magnet to an enormous planet or star) behaves like light – making the universe a hologram.
Since m=E, we can think of c as not merely representing the speed of light (energy) but as symbolic of mass and the speed of universal expansion (c=Hubble Constant or 299,792.458 kilometres per second = approx. 70
km/sec/megaparsec). What can it mean if c and c2 both equal 1 in the context of cosmic
holographic expansion? Answering this is impossible unless we look back at the work of Albert Einstein. That work leads to the
conclusion - if c has the same value as c ^ 2 then the velocity of light in a vacuum must be a universal constant and since it cannot change, space-time has to warp: producing things like gravity, gravitational lenses, black holes and time travel. Applied to cosmic holographic expansion, the conclusion is – if c has the same value as c ^ 2 then expansion (whether positive, zero or negative) obviously always exists and spacetime‘s
warping produces the weird phenomena modern science proposes, like higher dimensions and hyperspace and time travel and parallel universes. Let's see where things lead if we assume c and c2 both equalling 1 means that the future universe, whose rate of expansion is the square of today‘s, is existing at the same time as today‘s – and if we think of present expansion as c2, that the present universe whose rate of expansion is the square of one in the past is unified with the past one. For a start, such an assumption would be consistent with "dark energy" causing expansion to
We can, of course, write that c2 equals a number, any number (c2 = n)
Then c = square root n (n ^ ½)
But c= 1
Therefore n ^ ½= 1
and 1= c ^2 n=c^2
Since c and c2 both equal n, any past or future universe (whatever the rate of expansion, even if zero or negative) exists at the same time as ours. So asimple modification of Einstein‘s E = mc ^ 2 to E = m ^ 1+0 implies that our holographic universe is generated and supported by binary digits (1's and
0's). The universe‘s underlying electronic foundation (which makes our cosmos into a partially-complete unification, similar to 2 objects which appear billions of years or billions of lightyears apart on a huge computer screen actually being unified by the strings of ones and zeros making up the computer code which is all in one small place) would make ourcosmos into physics‘ holy grail of a complete unification if it enabled not only elimination of all distances in space and time, but also elimination of distance between (and including) the different sides of objects and particles. This last point requires the universe to not merely be a vast collection of the countless photons, electrons and other quantum particles within it; but to be a unified whole that has particles and waves built into its union of digital 1‘s and 0‘s (or its union of qubits – quantum binary digits). The feedback of the past and future universes into the unified cosmos's electronic foundation would ensure that both past and future could not be altered.
Carl Sagan (who was an American astronomer, astrophysicist, cosmologist and author) said there is "... no centre to the expansion, no point of origin of the Big Bang, at least not in ordinary threedimensional space." (p. 27 of "Pale Blue Dot" Headline Book Publishing, 1995). Does this mean the Big Bang (or for our purposes, the binary 1's and 0's) would exist outside space-time in what we might call 5th dimensional hyperspace? The revised equation also says this universe is a unification, permitting time travel into both past and future (because any past or future universe exists at the
same time as ours – a twist on the concept of parallel universes). Repeated
experimental verification of Einstein‘s Relativity theory confirms its statement that space and time can never exist separately but form what is known as space-time. So space, like time, must also be a unification whose separation can be reduced to zero. This suggests that intergalactic travel might oneday be completed extremely rapidly.
Our planet Earth is just a pale blue dot in this photo taken from nearly 4 billion miles away by the spacecraft Voyager 1
And according to Michio Kaku on p. 316 of "Physics of the Impossible" Penguin Books, 2009
-"... the inverse-square law (of famous English scientist Isaac Newton [1642-1727]) says that the force between two particles is infinite* if the distance of separation goes to zero". Spacetime‘s being a unification whose separation can be reduced to zero also suggests the existence of an infinitely powerful, and infinitely intelligent (since those particles could be brain particles), God. Since the distance of separation is zero, the universe must be unified with each of its
constituent subatomic particles and those particles must follow the rules of fractal geometry being similarly composed of space and time and hyperspace. Unification of the cosmos with its particles is an insurmountable challenge to our bodily senses and their extensions, scientific instruments – as is existence of zero
separation between us and a star‘s gravity, heat etc. If we could see the universe exclusively with our minds, we'd see that these insurmountable challenges are indeed possible if we live in a nonmaterialistic holographic universe (combining gravitational with electromagnetic waves) controlled by the magic of computers.
* Page 118 of Stephen Hawking‘s/Leonard Mlodinow‘s The Grand Design says M-theory (that theory which string theorists now consider fundamental) has solutions that allow for many different internal spaces (the curling up of extra dimensions into tiny, invisible spaces), perhaps as many as 10^500, which means it allows for 10^500 different universes, each with its own laws. My article suggests there is only one universe (I call it a megauniverse), with one set of physical laws. 10^500 would therefore not refer to space and the number of universes but to time (space‘s other half) and the number of frames existing in the cosmos at present. Could this unbelievably enormous number also be known, when applied to practical purposes, as infinity (infinity will increase in the future when
hyperspace transmissions produce more space and time)?
Subuniverse? Megauniverse? What am I talking about?
A megauniverse is hinted at by Einstein´s equations as well as cosmology´s Steady State theory, which say the universe has always existed and will continue forever. Einstein spoke of a "static" universe (which accurately describes a megauniverse that has no limits in space and has always existed/will continue forever), but he thought of this local branch as static, and rightly called it his greatest mistake since the local universe (our subuniverse) is now known to have had a beginning and to be expanding. Each subuniverse and its region of space-time is created from a big bang, but the megauniverse they belong to has no beginning and no end. And it
maintains its average density through continuous "creation" of matter (actually, conversion of the energetic hyperspace transmissions to matter - in agreement with the Law of Conservation which says neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed, only converted *) via the small amount from a preceding subuniverse which is used to initiate expansion of its successor. This steadystate, or static, megauniverse would have its tendency to collapse (from, according to the viewpoint that only one time exists at any instant, ever-increasing gravitational attraction)
always exactly balanced by, again from the viewpoint that all times cannot exist at once, the ever-increasing expansion of the universes it contains. The notion that contained universes that are forever expanding would somehow "burst" a static, steady-state megauniverse mistakenly assumes the megauniverse possesses a finite size; and it also reverts to our everyday
experience that only one time exists at any instant (forgetting that all times exist and the
megauniverse therefore accommodates not just some, but all, extents of expansion). Expanding subuniverses reminds me of the claim by cosmologists Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok that the Big Bang which created our universe was triggered by a collision between our cosmic brane (or membrane) and a neighbouring one. The only essential difference between our hypotheses is that I believe collisions between neighbouring universes are the result, not the cause, of big bangs. We can regard the cosmic hologram and the megauniverse as examples of invariance (the quality of not changing) and the hologram´s relativistic
property of appearing different from differing vantage points as represented by the expanding universes with their big bangs.
* So is it not possible that the newly fertilised egg which grows into a baby is not exclusively a product of its past ancestors and the time it‘s born in (this is impossible in a unified universe) but also a conversion of matter and energy from the future, and the supreme example of backward causality (effects influencing causes). It would not be unreasonable to say every person we see is ultimately from the future. I imagine the beginning of languages and civilisation is not totally dependent on historical origins but
also on effects influencing causes, therefore partly depending on the future. Dr. Michio Kaku writes on p. 283 of the book Physics of the Impossible (Penguin Books, 2009) that It would set off a major shake-up in the very foundations of modern physics if precognition was ever proved in reproducible experiments. I believe a baby born into a cosmic/quantum unification (and, in the greatest series of reproducible experiments ever, every person on the planet is or was or will be that baby) is born into a literal unification of the mind with all space-time, making the non-existence of precognition impossible.
Galaxies make up subuniverses which make up the megauniverse – but since the universe is everything that exists, it‘s accurate to simply say Galaxies make up the universe
Just as E=mc2 means energy must contain particles e.g. electromagnetic energy is composed of photons, E=m^1+0 means a computer in the universe‘s hyperspace which is projected onto space-time must, thanks to fractal geometry repeating phenomena from the smallest scale to the largest, also be contained ineach particle‘s hyperspace and projected onto the immaterial particle‘s space-time i.e. the entire universe is contained in (or unified with) every one of its particles.
This reminds me of something: The realisation that every person is contained in, or unified with, every other person– all the others are part of the universe unified with any quantum particle in any individual - would not only usher in worldwide peace but also paradise on Earth (via the global financial crisis). The worldwide economic crisis has the potential for many political benefits, since cooperation will be the only way to maintain and improve our living standard if monetary systems fail. The crisis would encourage domestic and international peace and sharing - perhaps even paradise on earth ...
The present global financial crisis may indicate that the world we live in today has lost stability and is on the brink of changing. Therefore, this "crisis" might be necessary to awaken us to the potential of tomorrow. Just because money has been making the world go round for thousands of years doesn't mean money will be the way of the world forever. We should start looking for an alternative system to preserve, and increase, standards
of living now in case we need it tomorrow (I imagine politicians are the ones
with the resources and organizational ability needed to implement such a system). This scheme should not use any form of monetary organisation nor be based on gold, silver etc. It should, idealistic and naive as it appears at first, be based on mutual cooperation and the goal of ushering in a paradise on earth. We can say there can never be paradise on earth; but the human instinct to survive is much stronger than our tendency for other types of self-interest, and greed, and to not cooperate with each other. If money ceases to be an option; most people will gladly cooperate with those we would have previously regarded as competition, or even as an enemy, if it's the only way to maintain and improve our living standard.
Global financial crisis? Or world-changing political opportunity?
And the entire universe being contained in (or unified with) every one of its particles reminds me of something else: American astronomer Carl Sagan (1934-1996) wrote these lines for his award-winning television series and
accompanying book, Cosmos: There is an idea – strange, haunting, evocative– one of the most exquisite conjectures in science or religion. It is entirely undemonstrated; it may never be proved. But it stirs the blood. There is, we are told, an infinite hierarchy of universes, so that an elementary particle, such as an electron, in our universe would, if penetrated, reveal itself to be an entire closed universe. Well, this article
doesn‘t support the idea of a hierarchy of universes. I believe there is one static
megauniverse (one Cosmos) existing forever and made up of an infinite number of expanding subuniverses. But I do believe– it stirs my blood! – in the exquisite conjectures of the universe (and the infinite Cosmos) behaving like an elementary particle, and of these two combining to form one unified field.
E=m^1+0 also means, since energy equals mass, that the terms computer generated and computer do not necessarily refer to an actual machine sending out the binary digits of 1 and 0 but could refer to binary digits that are sent forth by telekinetic independence from technology (see Part 1 where it‘s explained that this independence from technology would seem to be dependent on technological band-gap implants in the brain). You and I would not merely possess a rigidly preprogrammed life in the universal hologram, but would be capable of a degree of free will because
the universe possesses a randomness factor – also called a mutation factor. (In computer art, randomness is introduced into the chain of repetitive calculations producing a mountain range so a convincingly rugged image will result.) I´d like to suggest that Charles Darwin´s evolution has far greater consequences than either he or any scientist has realized. I believe the theory is not limited to biology, but is absolutely fundamental to the very existence of our universe and everything in it i.e. to cosmology, space-time, physics, mathematics, etc. In a vital way, Darwin‘s ideas even go beyond Albert Einstein´s ideas since these paragraphs conclude that a "mutation factor" (a "randomness factor") is fundamental to the universe (regarding randomness, Einstein declared God does not play dice with the universe).
God does not play dice with the universe – until He / She realizes how vital quantum mechanics is