Light is Particles Traveling in a Spiral Path
Welcome to Aquarius, Volume 5, May 2006: The Spiral Path Theory of Light
Note: The Spiral Path Theory of Light is consistent with the ideas of Hannes Alfven, described in the book The Big Bang Never Happened, by Eric J. Lerner, published by Simon and Schuster in 1991. In this book, Eric J. Lerner describes how Alfven and other scientists have concluded that we live in a "plasma universe" where all of physical reality begins with filaments or filamentary structures that promptly form vortices or spiral forms with regard to both energy and matter. This interpretation of Lerner's work is my own and I am solely responsible for it.
See [The Spiral Path Theory Illustrated], 6 pages.
Copyright 2006 John Manimas Medeiros. All rights reserved. Anyone who benefits financially from the work of the author is obligated to compensate the author. Work in progress is not present on my Internet computer. See permissions below as guide to sharing this report.
This link includes all of the current contents of Chapter 7 - The imminent collapse of science, from an unpublished manuscript entitled Religion as Reality. John Manimas Medeiros is the sole author of this unpublished manuscript, and no copy rights are intended to be waived or diminished by posting this work under the title of "The Spiral Path Theory of Light," Welcome to Aquarius, Volume 5.
Limited permissions granted by the author:
By posting my work here, on these web pages, I have exercised my copyrights as an author, but have surrendered none. I can, however, allow further reproduction and sharing of my work on restricted terms if I chose to do so. I have chosen to grant to everyone who becomes aware of this work on the Internet, to reproduce one paper copy and one electronic file copy for themselves, for personal study, and one to be given to another person, without charge or any fee for the cost of the copy. I gave it freely, you must do the same. Remember the principle of copyright law: Anyone who benefits financially from the work of the author is obligated to compensate the author. The facts of geometry and mathematics can be neither patented nor copyrighted, but crediting an individual who made a scientific discovery is a common courtesy practiced throughout the world.
Citation suggested: Manimas, John. The Spiral Path Theory of Light, "Welcome to Aquarius," www.jmanimas.com, Volume 5, May 2006.
Rules for translations
The author does not have the financial resources to commission and approve translations from English to other languages; however, it is not the author's intention that this important information be available only in the English language. Therefore, please observe the following rules for any unofficial and unapproved translations of this entire work or any part of it:
1) Any translation into another language will please carry the following copyright notice and unofficial translation notice in BOTH ENGLISH AND THE OTHER LANGUAGE:
"Copyright 2006. John Manimas Medeiros. All rights reserved."
This is an unofficial translation from the original American English, at www . jmanimas . com , to [name of language], that was not examined or approved by the author, John Manimas.
The translators ( [names of translators] ) accept full responsibility for any errors in this translation or any misleading interpretations of the original work in English."
2) Neither the translator nor anyone else may accept any payment of any kind for copies of the translated work. I have given it to the world for free. You must do the same.
3) The author would appreciate receiving notice of any unofficial translations. Such notices can be sent by postal mail to: John Manimas, P.O. Box 536, Bellows Falls, VT 05101
4) The author would be pleased if unofficial translations are soon made available in Spanish, French, Russian, Chinese, Portuguese, Japanese, Arabic, Swahili and Italian.
Religion as Reality (by John Manimas): Table of Contents
Part One: That Old Time Religion
Chapter One: Predictions that come true
Chapter Two: Coping with reality (when it seems to change everything)
Chapter Three: Technology versus science
Chapter Four: The path of the truth
Chapter Five: A house of many mansions
Chapter Six: The test and how to pass it
Part Two: That Old Time Science
Chapter Seven: The imminent collapse of science
Chapter Eight: Is there a God?
Chapter Nine: Is there a battle between good and evil?
Chapter Ten: What is the meaning of justice after behavior is explained?
Chapter Eleven: What good is good behavior?
Chapter Twelve: Is there an enduring living spirit?
Chapter Thirteen: Missionaries from outer space
Chapter Fourteen: Missionaries from inner space
Chapter Fifteen: Mutual respect
Religion as Reality by John Medeiros
Part Two: Chapters Seven to Fifteen
That Old Time Science
Copyright Ó 1998, John M. Medeiros. All rights reserved.
Chapter Seven: The imminent collapse of science
I propose to attack the core of twentieth-century physics in four closely related steps:
1) By describing an alternative explanation for the phenomenon of light, including all electromagnetic "waves," as being both matter (photon particles) and energy (electromagnetic "waves"), which could account for most or all of the puzzling behavior of electromagnetic radiation. I call my explanation either the Spiral Path Theory of Light. or the Energy and Matter Theory of Light.
2) I offer an alternative explanation of "relativity" in simple-to-understand terms, and in particular to the concept that "nothing can travel faster than light," or that nothing traveling faster than light can be measured as traveling faster than light. I call my explanation Media of Perception Theory. That theory demonstrates that there is nothing special about the speed of light, other than that we use it as the medium of perception, or, as the medium for measuring the movement of objects. With any medium of perception, the results would be the same: We cannot measure the velocity of an object which is traveling faster than the medium of perception.
3) The so-called "red-shift" of celestial objects is not reliable evidence that those objects are moving away from us, or that the universe is "expanding." The "big-bang" theory of an expanding universe is wrong. The red-shift we perceive is caused by the phenomena of electromagnetic spirals losing energy over cosmic distances. That electromagnetic "beams" would lose energy over cosmic distances is consistent with the evidence in the physicists' record. It is more likely that the celestial bodies, or clumps of matter, in the universe are moving in a manner similar to Brownian motion, or random movements of gas molecules in a jar.
4) Radioisotope dating, or nuclear fission dating, or any similar form of dating a piece of very old material on Earth cannot be done reliably, because the physicists, and paleontologists and everyone else have overlooked the fact that lightning (100 million volts, 20,000 amperes) strikes the Earth approximately 8,640,000 times a day. The estimates which we have accepted for the age of fossils, rocks and the solar system itself, are not reliable.
First, before we take off in our rocket ship, let me make a point about a philosophical problem in human science which is rarely discussed, especially in books about "science," but always present. That point is: We do not know what "energy" is. We cannot touch it or feel it of itself, name it or measure it of itself. You might protest. We have "force" and "power" and "momentum" measurements, and we can determine how much "energy" will be needed to perform a certain amount of "work." Physicists refer to a common form of "energy" measurement, for example, as the cgs system, which means centimeter-grams-per-second. That means a "unit" of energy is the amount of energy which moves a mass of one gram (a pebble) a distance of one centimeter, in the time period of one second. (Thanks for the help.) However, it is a grand illusion to a significant extent. If you, or anyone, explores the meaning of measurement, and studies the different types of measurements that we have developed over the centuries (everything from the "foot" to the nanovolt), you will see something profound. It is this: All measurements of energy are stated in terms of the effects of that "energy" on a particular form of matter. In other words, we have never devised a method to "see" or measure energy except when energy causes some change in matter. That may seem like pure semantics at first, or simply an obvious and inescapable fact. But, it has profound implications for our understanding of light and the physical reality of the universe. Physicists tell us that light behaves like a wave (a wave form of energy) but also like a particle (a photon of matter, which may carry an electric charge). This statement implies that we do not actually live in a universe, but rather in a "duo-verse," that is, a physical world that is made of two things rather than one. If there is both matter and energy in physical existence, then they are two separate "things," and we live in a duo-verse. If matter and energy are the same thing, or if there is only matter, then we live in a uni-verse. The famous equation E = mc2 has suggested to most people that energy and matter are interchangeable, or that matter and energy are the same "thing," which can switch from a state of matter to a state of energy and vice versa. But, that is not necessarily so. The evidence suggests that matter is lost or destroyed in certain interactions, such as an atomic bomb. There is evidence that very small quantities of matter are "lost" in other types of interactions also. However, a loss of matter is not final proof that the matter lost was simply switching its hat from the matter hat to the energy hat. It could be that interactions among molecules of matter, under certain conditions, cause both a release of energy and the destruction of matter. What is more profound philosophically, and scientifically, is the possibility--which we should not eliminate from consideration--that "energy" does not exist at all in the external world. Energy, like time, could be a fiction of consciousness. That would be logically possible if what we observe in the real world is always the interactions of matter, and matter alone. Stated differently, let us say that there is a real universe of only one "thing," and that thing is matter. Different forms of matter interact with one another, or among one another, and the result is some change or action. That resulting change or action causes us, that is our brains, to perceive an event. Because an "event" appears to us to be very different from matter that just sits there doing nothing, our brains give it a special name, such as: force, power, energy. It could be, then, that the physical universe is made only of matter, and what we describe or define as energy is nothing more nor less than different types of events which occur when matter meets matter. As wild or "forced" as this discussion may sound, it is profoundly relevant to our understanding of twentieth-century physics and to our religion, primarily because it entails extremely important information about how we perceive reality and talk about it. The physicists' descriptions of light state that it behaves like both a wave, or energy, and a particle, or matter. Therefore, the physicists imply with little ambiguity that there is both energy and matter in our universe. They also state that energy exists in the form of a "wave." Now a wave is a very interesting phenomena, because it is not defined as matter, but rather a movement of matter. In other words, a wave could occur in many forms of matter, such as on the surface of a liquid (water) under the atmosphere of a fluid gas (air), or through a body of gas, such as sound traveling through air, or through liquid, such as sound through water, or through a solid, such as an earthquake which actually does produce "waves" of rising and falling earth. What is fascinating about such waves, is that they do not always travel at the same velocity. Even sound travels at a slightly different velocity in warm air than in cold air. It travels more rapidly through certain solids. As it were, anything can "wave." If you hang a flag on a pole in a wind, or gentle breeze, it will "wave." When you take the flag down, is the air still waving? What is the movement of a wave without a flag, or a wave without water? Now you should be getting the crucial point here: Is there such a thing as energy without a measurable effect on matter? It could be argued, logically and consistently, that if we cannot demonstrate the existence of energy without reference to its impact on matter, then we in fact cannot demonstrate the existence of energy as being something different and distinctly separate from matter. If, therefore, we cannot measure energy or describe energy by some means other than a reference to matter, we cannot be certain that energy does in fact exist as something distinctly different and separate from matter. If that is the case, then light, like everything else, is an "event" that occurs to matter (a photon) under certain conditions. If we conclude, for whatever reason, perhaps some religious conviction, that there is both matter and energy in the universe, then light must be both matter and energy. The "wave" is the energy that pushes the matter (the photon particle). That is why when physicists "measure" light, they find either one or the other depending on the method of measurement. All forms of measuring light are technologies which detect the behavior of the photon. The "waves" are oscillations in the impact of the light, on other matter, such as an electrical "field" or magnetic "field." That is why light, and other wavelengths of radiation, are called "electromagnetic" energy. It is necessary to keep in mind, while you are reading my Spiral Path Theory of light, that for me there is both energy and matter in the world. We do not know what energy is. And, light includes the movement of matter, a photon, which is just as solid and real as a planet or a baseball, only much smaller. This is also a good time to say that I am certain my theory can be tested by means of controlled experiments.
The Spiral Path Theory of Light
Light energy propagates in the form of a spiral, not a wave. The spiral form energy pushes photons in spiral paths. Many photons traveling in congruent spiral paths each with the same amplitude and frequency result in the appearance of three dimensional waves, or, two dimensional waves if viewed in a cross-section side view. The light from our sun, or any nuclear star, is made up of many wave amplitudes and frequencies, therefore, it is made up of many different types of "waves." The reason we have detected waves when measuring light, is because our methods of measurement are capable of detecting only that two-dimensional quality, or oscillating quality, of light. In order to detect the spiral path of electromagnetic waves, we will need to design an experimental apparatus that will detect the paths of a very few microwave photons (wavelength of about a centimeter) through a solid, three-dimensional detector. The "amplitude" of the "wave" (the distance from the midline to the crest) must also fall within a measurable range of a few centimeters. Other experimental designs might work as well, or better. That a photon of light should be traveling in a spiral path is consistent with what we know about them. When elements are excited, such as by heat or nuclear reactions, they give off or eject electrons. The electrons that are ejected become the photons. Before being ejected, an electron is spinning at an enormous speed around the nucleus of an atom. Why should it suddenly lose all of that angular momentum and just get spat out in a straight line. The reason we have not detected the spiral path of a photon is because for most of the tiny wavelengths used in experimental design, the spiral is not visible. Also, the photons usually are detected on a thin sheet of material, which is again, not able to show the path of the photon, but only a point where it impacts the matter. No matter what kind of path a tiny particle is following, if you detect it at a single point, a single point is what you get. To summarize thus far: Light is photons following a spiral path. With any measurement that is not designed specifically to detect the spiral path, only a one-dimensional or two-dimensional quality is being measured. That is why we see waves, which is what a spiral looks like from the side view. That is, if you stretch out a spring, it is a spiral.
If light is both matter and energy, then it would be possible for the moving energy to drop some photons and pick them up again later, or drop some photons and pick up other electrons which become photons. This would be consistent with the results of some scientific experiments which demonstrate how light "behaves like a wave." That is, when light is passed through a narrow slit, some of the photons appear to be stopped by the opaque obstacle, but later the light gets back to its original form, as though nothing has been lost from the beam of light. I will discuss this further later, with a further explanation of how light could be both matter and energy.
The spiral form of electromagnetic energy explains the different effects of the energy levels of light of different wave amplitudes and frequencies. Let me offer a brief review of wave "amplitude" and "frequency" so that I don't lose some readers. Light is described by physicists and chemists as being comprised of waves with wavelengths ranging from the very large to the very small, that is, from radio waves with wavelengths up to 10,000 meters down to gamma rays with wavelengths so small they could fit between the nucleus and the outer electron shell of an atom. I will use my spiral path model to describe the spiral path of a photon of light. It is equally useful for describing the wave form of light that is detected in any two-dimensional measurement.
Imagine that we have a flat circular disk, kind of like an aluminum pie plate only perfectly flat. Let's say the diameter of the disk is twelve inches, the radius is of course six inches. We have drilled a very small hole exactly in the center of that disk. We have run a very fine but very strong wire through the center of that disk, and tied the wire very taunt, in a straight line, from one tree to another about a mile away. Now we have a force, kind of like an electrical or magnetic repulsion at one end, which causes the disk to travel, flat side forward, along the wire toward the other tree. If this were real light, it would be traveling at 186,282 miles per second. Now we are going to mark a small dot of glowing material on the edge of that disk, and run it up and down the wire at night. We are also going to have some special force, whatever force it is that causes light to be what it is, to make the disk spin at a perfectly even rate through the whole trip. Now that we have everything ready, we can enjoy a night of "spin the flying disk" and see how light travels in spiral paths. As the disk travels forward, and spins, the glowing dot clearly traces a spiral path. From the side, if the disk were transparent and we could see the glowing dot at all times, the path of the dot would look like an oscillating wave. From any other angle, and because we know what we know about the disk, we would see the spiral path. If we could control the rate of spin, but not the velocity of the disk itself along the wire, we would see long curved spirals like a spring stretched out, when the disk spun slowly. When the disk was spun more rapidly, the spirals would become tighter and tighter. The spiral path would then look something like the thread on a bolt, or the wire frame for a flexible air duct. If we had a contest to see who could make the disk spin the fastest, we would need some way to measure the velocity of the disk. That could be done in different ways, but an easy and approximate way would be to view the flying disk from the side, and mark off an enclosed unit of length, say one meter. Then, an observer could count the number of spins, or "waves" completed per meter. That would be the "frequency" of the wave or spiral movements. Clearly, if someone spins the disk faster, it will complete more turns in that fixed meter of length, and thereby win the contest. If we are the observer, we will see tighter and tighter spirals, shorter and shorter wavelengths. (Remember, the wavelength is simply the distance from peak to peak if we are watching the glowing dot on the spinning disk from the side.) This is, according to my theory, the explanation of light. The glowing dot is analogous to the photon, which is pushed "forward" by the ejective force of the light energy but which retains its spinning momentum. Notice that when the disk is spinning faster, and the frequency is therefore higher (more spins per meter) the disk represents more "energy" that has been put into its spin. This holds true for real light. That is, electromagnetic waves of higher frequency possess greater "energy." But, I believe there is a relatively simple explanation for this frequency/energy relationship, which a physicist might have guessed at already. While we are having fun playing "spin the flying disk" (a more serious version of spin the bottle?), some of the older kids show up and begin making fun of us. They laugh and say, "Look at that puny little disk. Any little wimp could spin that silly disk. Let's see you spin a real disk!" And one of the big kids pulls out a disk that is 18 inches in diameter, and another 24 inches in diameter, and another 36 inches in diameter. They each take turns sliding their larger disks on the wire. Now, the velocity of the disk, flat face forward along the wire, is fixed. Due to the physical restrictions, the friction, air resistance, and the force which propels it forward, the disk velocity is always the same. But, now we have a significant change in the energy relationships. The bigger disks, which still have the same small glowing dot on the edge, require more energy to spin. The larger radius of a larger disk means that the wave forms we see from the side have a larger "amplitude." In our model here, amplitude and radius are actually the same thing. Let the contest begin! At first we just see the larger spiral forms, stretched out a bit and with fairly slow frequencies. As the spirit of the competition catches on, the muscle boys put more and more energy into their spins, and start closing up those wavelengths. The frequencies rise higher and higher. Then, Mr. Stronger-than-anyone-in-the-world says, "Let's put on a bigger disk." Which we do, and the spirals of larger and larger amplitudes, with greater and greater frequencies, represent more and more energy. This is true for real light. There is a direct relationship between frequency and amplitude. If you maintain the amplitude and increase the frequency, you increase the energy. If you maintain the frequency and decrease the amplitude, you decrease the energy. Also, if you switch values, meaning trade an amplitude of 10 and a frequency of 2 for an amplitude of 2 and a frequency of 10, the result is the same measure of energy.
So far my model accounts for the basic characteristics of electromagnetic "waves," but I expect to show it goes much further than that. For example, the spiral path theory of light explains how and why different frequencies of electromagnetic radiation (photons) have different effects on different materials, such as metals, plastics, or living tissue. To explain how a spiraling photon effects matter, I would like to make up a story with a little black humor, if you don't mind. Hopefully, it makes what could otherwise be fairly dry much more interesting.
Imagine that you, as innocent and wonderful as you are, have been convicted of a crime. It is a serious crime. You know you didn't do it, but maybe you are a psychopath who forgets things, or maybe you live in an unjust society where nice people get railroaded by corrupt authorities. Both these themes show up in our literature and movies constantly, so why not have them explain physics? Now that you have been convicted, and your attorney's efforts to rig the jury and bribe the judge have failed, and your appeals have been denied, and you are getting old and tired, you are ready to give up and take your punishment. Your punishment is interesting. It is not simply a run-of-the-mill electrocution or gas chamber or lethal injection. You got convicted of your horrible crime in Texas, and they have devised a special psychological kind of punishment for criminals like you. They want to be fair, and they believe in "fate." Therefore, you are going to have the opportunity to play a role in the nature of your own punishment. It works as follows. You are going to be shot by one bullet or up to twelve bullets. The gun that fires the bullet or bullets is aimed at your navel. The gun is a special gun which does not shoot bullets in a straight line. It shoots them in a spiral path. The paths of the bullets will be determined by four rolls of a pair of dice, which you, in the name of justice, will roll yourself (under supervision of course). The first roll will determine the amplitude of the spiral "disk," from 3 inches to 36 inches. If you roll a two on your first roll, the amplitude is 6 inches. If you roll a twelve, the amplitude is 36 inches. There is, of course, something special about 7 and 11. If you roll a 7 or 11 on your first roll, the amplitude is treated as a roll of "one" or 3 inches. The second roll is a killer. You will get a value of "one" if you roll a 7 or an 11. (Texans are fair if anything.) The second roll determines the number of bullets that will be fired at you. After that second roll, many convicts experience a depressed mood. The third roll determines the frequency of the spirals, but this time in one-inch divisions. That means that if you roll a 7 or 11, the frequency of the spiral path of the bullets will be only one-inch apart. That is narrow enough to cut a spiral path from your tum-tum to your noggin. If you roll a twelve on your third roll, the frequency will be 36 inches, wide enough to miss you completely, if the amplitude is also wide, of course. By now you surely have begun to understand how each of these four rolls of the dice have a profound effect on how much damage is going to be done to your innocent and sensitive body. The fourth roll is simple, but again profoundly important. In divisions of three feet, the last roll determines the distance you will stand facing the barrel of the "gun," from a minimum of 3 feet to a maximum of 36 feet. This is a representation of how a spiraling photon has its impact on the matter it strikes or "passes through." Clearly, each factor is very important. You might have some fun figuring out the results of the various combinations: high amplitude but many bullets; one bullet but smallest amplitude and smallest frequency; and so on. Ask yourself this: If you could control the rolls of the dice without being detected, what would you roll for each of the four rolls: amplitude, number of bullets, frequency, distance? Distance is significant not because the bullets will do less damage if you are 36 feet away, but because no one knows at what point the spiral will "begin" when the bullets leave the gun. That part is random. So you do not know which "quadrant" of the spiral will be turning as the bullet passes--or passes through--your body. In my model of the electromagnetic photon spiral, your body is analogous to any molecule of matter. Since molecules vary greatly, the damage done to matter by radiation in the real physical world varies not only according to the "energy" level of the photons, but according to the specific structure of the molecules. That is why certain high frequencies of radiation do far more serious damage to living tissue than to dead objects in a given period of time, because the molecular structures of living proteins are very large and complex and easily changed, and they are thereby rendered dysfunctional by "hits" on a few atoms. Living tissue is organized in a highly specific manner. A minor change at the molecular level renders the tissue inoperable, therefore, cancerous or "dead."
See [The Spiral Path Theory Illustrated], 6 pages.
Ordinary sunlight dries wood or paint, and radiation from a nuclear generator causes steel to become brittle and crack. The impact of radiation of different "energy levels" in my model, is not due to some inherent differences in different photons, but rather to the spiral path of the photon. Think again of the photon which has a wide amplitude and a high frequency. The current model says that kind of radiation has a high energy level. My model says that the photon has a higher energy level because it is traveling a greater distance, in a unit of "length" (of forward motion of the light beam) or in a unit of time. Every turn of the spiral disk, which completes one "wave" or one of the frequencies, is a circular distance, which is in effect the circumference of a circle. Clearly, a photon which travels through 50 circles (or spirals) in one meter has traveled further, in the same unit of time, than a photon that has traveled through 20 circles (or spirals). Therefore, that is how my model accounts for the higher energy of the photon radiation of higher frequency. It is traveling faster than the photon of lower frequency. It therefore has a greater momentum (which is mass times velocity). Also, the dimensional relationships between the frequency, amplitude and number of photons, as described in the metaphor of the convict and the bullets, has a profound effect over the nature and quantity of the damage caused by radiation. This changes the story of light completely. It means that light actually does travel at different velocities, but the variation of velocity is embodied in the spiral path of the photon, not the straight-line path of the light beam, which always remains the same. In my spiral path model, the photon does not really possess a different level of energy inherently, that is, of itself because of its source, but because of its path. A "longer" path, which can be made longer by greater amplitude or greater frequency, means greater momentum and therefore greater "energy." The greater energy of greater amplitude does not have precisely the same effect as greater frequency. If we give a photon a very large amplitude, its momentum increases, but due to the spiral path of the photon, the result of increasing amplitude is to cause the photon to "pass through" the matter it encounters from a broader angle of approach. Increasing the amplitude of a photon ray is therefore something like shooting an arrow at a flat target from an angle rather than from a perpendicular position. Again, I believe this model would explain the many effects and behavior of electromagnetic radiation. It also would do something else profound and a bit earthshaking for physicists. It would tend to carry the principles of Newtonian physics down into the subatomic world. It would support an argument that there is one set of physical laws for all matter of all sizes, rather than the current doctrine that the laws of physics are different at the subatomic level than they are at the frying-pan level.
To get out of the frying pan and into the fire, the fire of subatomic reality that is, let me offer one more analogy in support of my model of light as being both matter and energy. Suppose we design a little experiment, a simple one to demonstrate a simple reality about light. We shine a bright light down a round tube about four feet in length. The light source will be an ordinary light bulb with the light directed forward by a parabolic reflector, similar to a large flashlight. The tube will have the same diameter of the reflective light source, about four inches. The far end of the tube will be closed, but not entirely. It is provided with a narrow vertical slit the same length, or height, as the diameter of the tube. The tube then continues the vertical slit opening, like a pipe that has been flattened but not closed, for about two feet. If we place an opaque flat, vertical surface immediately in front of the slit, in a darkened room, the light on that opaque surface will convey the shape of the slit to some extent. However, if we move that flat, opaque surface away from the end of the flattened tube, the light will gradually change from the vertical slit shape toward the generally round or dispersed shape of any ordinary source of light. This simple experiment is similar to others, some of which are much more ingenious, which contribute to the evidence that light "behaves like a wave and also like a particle." The fact that a beam of light passed through a shaped opening returns to its generally round, dispersed form is a piece of evidence that light sometimes behaves like a wave. How could my model, where I insist that light is a photon particle, being propelled by a form of energy, be consistent with this "wavelike" behavior of light. The answer is not difficult. A photon is very "light," both by measurement of weight or mass (mass is the number of atoms in or the absolute volume of matter; weight is the pull of gravity on that mass, and gravity varies from planet to planet). Think of the times you might have seen little motes of dust floating in the air with sunlight reflecting off of them. They are so ephemeral. They can be blown all around the room by an imperceptible movement of air. A photon is even smaller than that. It does not take much energy to move a photon. Now here is my analogy: a tornado begins, in Kansas of course, near the land of Oz, which is the land of physicists. A tornado is a swirling or spinning tube of wind. The wind or air movement is so powerful that it creates a vacuum in the buildings it touches. It can pick up and hurl very large and heavy objects, such as tank trucks, small houses, towers and trees. Imagine that as the tornado travels through your town, you see it pick up something that is ordinarily fairly heavy--a discarded tractor tire--but which is nothing to the force of that tornado. The tire goes up and you see it swirling in the spinning wind of that tornado, traveling the circular and spiral path of the tornado shape as though the tire were one with the wind. Then something happens. The tornado approaches a very solid, concrete train tunnel through a small mountain. This is, of course, the only mountain on the plains of Kansas. That train tunnel is about the length of three football fields, which means 300 yards, or 900 feet. As powerful as that tornado is, it is not going to blow away that little mountain, nor is it going to rip the tunnel out of the mountain. The mountain and tunnel are going to stay right where they are. However, the tornado is not going to actually enter the tunnel, although it will send some mighty wind through it. It is going to pass over the tunnel. But, what is happening to our spinning tire, which is like a photon propelled by the spinning force of light energy? It strikes a stone wall, and then bounces into the tunnel. It is moving very fast, and carries great momentum. It's a "lightyear" tire, so it is very bouncy. It bounces or reflects off the tunnel walls, the floor of the tunnel and the "ceiling" of the tunnel, but because of the wind that still came into the tunnel, it is still moving generally in the direction toward the opposite end of the tunnel as it bounces around. And then, when it comes out of that far end of the tunnel, our tornado is conveniently there, and just happened to be passing by at the same moment that the lightyear tire came bounding out. So, our unlucky tire, or lucky tire if my theory is proven true, is picked up again by the tornado and returns shortly to its swirling path which is virtually the same as the swirling path of the air in the tornado. This is, in the Spiral Path Theory or Light, the model of how the photon particle can "leave" the spiral path imposed on it by the force of the light energy, due to encountering obstacles or influences such as solid atoms, a reflective surface, or a magnetic field, but can also return to the spiral path imposed by the light energy when the effects of those "obstacles" no longer apply. The power of the light energy is tremendous compared to the small weight and size of the photon, similar to the way a tornado can capture, and recapture, a tractor tire so long as it is not fastened down. Therefore, an electron is a photon that is fastened down to an atom. A photon is an electron that has been ejected or set free, and is caught up in the tornado beam of light energy. There are experiments which demonstrated that an electron can become a photon of light energy, and other experiments which suggest that the "wave form" energy of light can "pick up" electrons and thereby make them, like the tire in the tornado, part of the light phenomena. This means, to me, that such experiments support my model of light as being both energy and matter. Other particles, larger than photons, can become the alpha, beta and gamma particles of high frequency radiation. The hard part is understanding the energy. I do not claim to understand what energy is. I do not believe any physicist has the slightest idea what energy is. That's why they say it is whatever moves a gram of matter one centimeter in one second. The only definition of energy we have that tells us anything is that if something causes matter to change, but that something is not matter itself, then it is "energy." Therefore, energy is something that causes matter to change but which is not matter itself. Perhaps the only way we could test the existence of energy alone would be to observe an enclosed space of a total vacuum, to see if any "energy" passes through but which we would not measure by observing its impact on matter. If this is not possible, and it does sound impossible, then we must acknowledge that we can be certain only that what we call "energy" is a description of an event involving matter. It is truly difficult to decide whether we live in a universe of "one thing" or a duo-verse of matter and energy.
One might ask: "If light is a photon traveling in a spiral path, why has that not been discovered by physicists who are both intelligent and competent?" The answer is that intelligent and competent scientists could still have very powerfully imprinted "doctrines" in their records of knowledge in their brains, the same as other human beings. Also, the primary explanation is in the limitations of human measuring devices. All methods of measuring electromagnetic phenomena fall into either one of two categories. One is a method that detects the oscillating impacts of light energy on matter. Those methods establish that "light sometimes behaves like a wave." The second type of measuring method detects the photon particle of light, or rather, detects the impact of a photon particle on a two-dimensional plane surface. Thereby, it is simply a "point" or an impact at a point. The path of the photon has never been revealed by any physical experiment. This is a good way of explaining the "uncertainty principle" of Theodore Heisenberg. The uncertainty principle states that we cannot measure both the position and velocity of a subatomic particle accurately at the same time. When we measure the velocity, our method of measurement either causes us to lose track of the particle's position, or actually to change its position. When we measure the position of the particle, our method of measurement causes us to lose track of its velocity, or actually to change its velocity. This is the only meaning of the "uncertainty principle." It does not mean that the behavior of matter is governed by "probability" rather than by a determined cause and effect. All forms of "probability" or "probability waves" are, to me, human inventions to cope with physical processes too complicated for us to trace out the chains of cause and effect. Many scientists would agree with my position in that area. Although we are unable to identify clearly and crisply the cause and effect in many submolecular physical events, no one has ever proven that the physical universe is not determined (as it always appears to be in routine macrophysics) by consistent laws of cause and effect. That cause and effect can be discovered and understood is still the fundamental principle of science that precedes all others. Without an expectation of understanding, experimental research would not produce real "science," that is new knowledge. My position is that what we call electromagnetic energy, or light, is always both energy and matter, and no one has ever devised an experimental apparatus which can detect the path of a photon in three dimensional space. When such an apparatus is effectively designed, it will add to our understanding of light. The Spiral Path Theory is offered as a consistent mathematical model, even if we do not, or cannot, observe particles moving in a spiral path, just as Einstein's theory of gravitation is often illustrated by means of a "funnel" shape to represent the acceleration of an object "falling around" a planet. The funnel is a mathematical model for measuring a movement that results in part from gravitational force, although we know there is no real funnel under a planet. It is a useful technology, not science. The representational model of the funnel is just that, not an explanation of what gravity is or why it is. It is actually technology, in particular a mathematical or geometric technology. That is why physicists sometimes make reference to the "space-time continuum" or to the "geometry of space-time." It is all a method of calculation, which works because our brains, for some reason, make it work. Without the mathematical brain, it would all be meaningless as a representation of anything real. But, there would still be gravity, and we would still wonder what it is.
The Velocity of Light
It has been a common misinterpretation of Einstein's relativity theories to say that "nothing can travel faster than the speed of light." What the mathematics and experimental record predicts is that we cannot measure the velocity of an object which is traveling faster than the speed of light. I object to these theories being classified or categorized as theories in the field of physics. I would rename these theories under the general heading of Media of Perception Theory, and designate them as belonging not only to the field of physics but also to the fields of psychology and religion. That means, that psychologists and theologians should study these theories, and discuss them, and include their meaning for human beings within the scope of their professional lives. My objection is important, because what I am saying is that the relativity theories, which physicists claim and discuss as though they are a physicist's property, are in fact theories about the differences between how we perceive reality and how that reality is without our perceiving it. In other words, relativity theories are about human perception and physicists do not own information that is pertinent to human perception. At least, we should not behave as though it is theirs alone to use, test, and explicate. There is both a physical and mathematical basis for my position.
The current physicists' description of the behavior of light, based on a long record of experimentation, is that light behaves as both a wave and a particle. And, experiments which observe light as a wave obtain the same results as experiments that observe light as a photon particle. Further, physicists state that all phenomena in the real natural world possess both the qualities of waves and particles. (Perhaps not all physicists.) My position is that the physicists seem to have eliminated the possibility that light is in fact both a wave (of ephemeral "energy" which we do not comprehend) and a particle (a photon of matter, a solid object which we comprehend far better than the ephemeral energy). Therefore I predict that my model, which could be referred to as the Energy and Matter Theory of Light, is consistent with the record of experimentation. A certain type of experiment has been conducted in different forms to demonstrate that gravity influences light. The results of such experiments have led physicists to conclude that consistent with Einstein's theories, the light beam can travel at only one velocity, but the electromagnetic radiation, meaning the wavelength which has an amplitude and frequency, can lose energy due to the effect of gravity. And, when electromagnetic radiation loses energy, the frequency of the waves is reduced. That phenomena is precisely consistent with my model, except that my model supports the concept that the loss of energy is directly correlated to the loss of frequency, and can be calculated in accordance with Newtonian mechanics, that is, in terms of the momentum of a body of matter (a photon) traveling in a uniform spiral path. When the energy pushing that photon is reduced, the wavelength must "slow down" which means "stretch out" because the metaphorical "disk" is not spinning with the same velocity. Therefore, the frequency of "waves" or complete spiral turns is fewer per unit of space or time. I go one step further and argue that, if the Spiral Path Theory of Light is correct, then the truth is that light does not really always travel at the same velocity. It slows down. It just slows down in a different manner from other objects. The "energy" entity, apparently always travels at the same speed of 186,282 miles per second, but the velocity of the photon varies according to the "wavelength" and "frequency." Further again, I argue that there is nothing really special about the velocity of light in Nature, except that it is our preferred medium of perception. What is true about the velocity of light, is actually true for any medium of perception, real or theoretical, which we might use, in accordance with one of Einstein's crucial equations.
To demonstrate mathematically that we could not measure the velocity of an object traveling faster than the speed of light, Einstein proposed a special equation. That equation is usually called the Lorentz Transformation and sometimes called the Lorentz Contraction. It can be understood and applied by anyone who understands highschool algebra. In applying this equation, however, it is important to keep in mind that the velocity of light is being treated in a certain way. By that I mean we are not manipulating the velocity of light, or examining it in any freewheeling or flexible manner. What we do when we apply this equation is we treat the velocity of light as though it were a special unit, and we assume that we can measure the velocity of anything traveling less than that velocity or up to equal to that velocity. We then use the equation to test the specific question: "What will happen if we add something to that velocity?" In other words, this equation tells us (or at least is supposed to tell us) what happens if we are trying to measure the velocity of an object which is traveling faster than the speed of light. We will use the equation shortly, and you will see its fantastic effect. But, I want to explain my view of this equation and what it means a little further before we look at the mathematical "proof." The physicist applies this equation and says: Look, we cannot measure the velocity of an object traveling faster than the speed of light. If we add something to the velocity of the speed of light, our measurement still comes up only with the speed of light. No matter how much we add, even if we add the speed of light again (double the speed of light), the results of our measurement (and calculation) will still be the speed of light. My viewpoint is that this theory is not a theory about the fixed laws of the physical world. The only reason the theory is meaningful for us is because for us, and certainly for physicists, and rocket scientists and astronomers, the speed of light is our most useful medium of perception. When I say that light is our medium of perception I am saying that it is the means, the physical tool, which we use to receive information about any object or event. We do not know what is happening, how or where an object is moving unless we see it in some manner. This does not mean that we can see it only by means of reflected light, which is what seeing with our eyes is. It means that we must receive some kind of data, some kind of sensory information by means of some form of medium of perception. Obviously, sound waves are our second best medium of perception. I say second best only because they travel much more slowly than light. Actually, at 758 miles per hour, sound travels 884,716 times slower than light. It works great for speech, but is obviously not as good as light for receiving information about a moving object, especially if that moving object is a rock or a missile moving toward us. Clearly, if you will just think about it (in case you have never consciously thought about it before) in order to be useful, a medium of perception must travel much faster than the velocity of the objects that will be observed. Stated differently, of what use would light be to us, if it traveled at thirty miles per hour? If light traveled at thirty miles per hour, that would be forty-four feet per second. That would put us in a situation where, if we were hunting a deer, and a deer was running at a distance of approximately 88 feet away from us, the image of that deer would reach our eyes two seconds later. In that instant, or about 1/50th of a second later, which is the approximate time it takes our brain to register what we see, the deer, if it were running at thirty miles per hour, would be 88 feet away from where we saw it! This is just one quick example of how important it is, in our daily lives as well as in the world of physicists and astronomers, for our medium of perception to travel much faster than the objects we have to observe and deal with. Light is therefore a logical medium of perception, available for any living organism to develop "eyes" of some form to detect, because there appears to be very little in Nature that travels even close to the speed of light. Gravity may be an exception, but we can discuss that later. The central premise of my so-called Media of Perception Theory, is therefore a restatement and different angle of view on Einstein's theories of relativity. Instead of saying only that we cannot measure the velocity of any object which is traveling faster than the speed of light, I say: We cannot measure the velocity of any object which is traveling faster than the medium of perception which we use to make the measurement.
The equation is as follows: VE, the velocity we are measuring, is equal to: V1 plus V2, divided by: 1 plus (V1 times V2, divided by: C2). Written out in mathematical terms without the words, the equation is: VE = (V1 + V2) / (1 + (V1 x V2)/C2 ). To be sure you got that right, the top or numerator of the fraction is (V1 + V2). The bottom or denominator of the fraction is: 1 + another fraction, which is (V1 x V2) / C2. And, the meaning of the symbols is as follows: V1 is the velocity of light; V2 is the "added velocity" that is any number by which we are going to increase the speed of a moving object to make its velocity greater than the velocity of light; and C is equal to the velocity of light. This is the same "c" which appears in the equation E = mc2, which is the number 186,282 (miles per second). The way the equation works is simple. C is constant, being the velocity of light. If we input the value of V1 as the velocity of light and the value of V2 as zero (0), then the equation tells us that the measured velocity VE will be equal to the velocity of light. This obviously is not any big surprise so far. But, when we make V2 any positive amount, we are then using the equation to tell us what our measured value will be when the velocity of the object is V1 plus V2, that is a velocity greater than the velocity of light. The result is still C, the velocity of light. Therefore, to physicists this equation is accepted as proof, or at least a mathematical description, of the reality that we cannot measure the velocity of anything traveling faster than the speed of light. What I do to use this equation in support of my Media of Perception Theory, is re-designate V1 as MV, meaning the Medium Velocity, and V2 as AV, meaning the Added Velocity. Then the equation is recast as: VE = MV + AV / (1 + (MV x AV) / MV2 ). What this recast equation now accomplishes is to demonstrate, or "prove," that no matter what is the velocity of the medium of perception, we cannot measure the velocity of any object traveling faster than that medium of perception. If we use sound (.21 miles per second) or light, or an imaginary medium of perception that travels at 1,000 miles per second, or 10,000 miles per second, the results are the same. When we add some amount to the velocity of any object which is already traveling at the same velocity as the medium of perception, the result is still only the same as the velocity of the medium of perception, and never greater. The equation can be programmed into a home computer and tested. I used QBasic to program the equation in my home computer, and the results are as I have described. My program (MEDPER01.BAS) is included in Appendix B. Another way of explaining this proposed revision of relativity is to consider an airplane traveling faster than the speed of sound, say 1,000 miles per hour (1,467 feet per second). We can measure its velocity and say that it is traveling faster than the speed of sound because we use light as the medium to calculate its velocity. But, if we limited ourselves to measuring its velocity using only sound as the medium of perception, the result would be only the velocity of sound (1,130 feet per second). We would have no way to determine how much faster than sound it was traveling.
One of my highschool math teachers, Leonard Launer, once said to the class: "Math is the father of all sciences." I took that to mean that math is used in all sciences, and validates all sciences. I love mathematics. I find it fascinating. In some ways it must not be my strength, but I never tire of learning more math. However, I find mathematics deceptive and misleading in some important ways. For example, I believe that mathematics is a human invention, not a discovery. By that I mean we use math because our brains include the capacity to count and measure, to convert practically any quality of matter or energy to a number value. Perhaps what math does for us is provides us with an element of precision in our measurements, descriptions and calculations. My Humanities Instructor at Brandeis University, William Barker, once said to the class: "Precision is the essence of truth." I am not certain if that was an original statement from him, but it was original with me. I have never forgotten that statement. It is a principal of life and of reality for me. When we are told something that is not precise, we are possibly being deceived. When people argue about anything, an event or an idea, what someone else said or did, we usually get down to a matter of precision. Precision is important to us. It is often tenuous, hard to achieve, hard to accomplish in so much that we do. Therefore, we have a tendency to see mathematics as our greatest achievement in the pursuit of precision. I am not sure I agree. Mathematics is a language, and language resides in the brain. It has been said that Nature is mathematical, and I seriously question that statement. On what basis can we assert that Nature is mathematical? Trees don't count their own leaves. We know that the hours of sunlight and the number of degrees of "temperature" are important to the trees, but those numbers are our measurements, not the trees', not Nature's. For me, a mathematician who takes great pleasure in an elegant equation is similar to another person who takes great pleasure in watching ballet, or in doing ballet, or in hearing a concert, or in playing the flute in a concert. We each have our greatest pleasures, and we are drawn to the art or technology which satisfies our greatest pleasures or greatest needs. A mathematician therefore, is enjoying himself, or herself, by doing math in the same way that another type of artist is enjoying their art. We all use math because we are all able to use math. It gives us the precision we need. The most common experience of precision, where virtually everyone appears to desire it, is when we buy and sell, when we are actually "trading" with another person. We have always wanted a trade to meet our needs and satisfy our sense of fairness. We don't want to be cheated. We don't want to feel cheated. It is possible then, that if mathematical ability is a survival trait that evolved in humans, then the real reason we do have mathematical ability, and use it in all of our technology, is not because Nature is mathematical, but because it gives us precision and control. It would make sense for math to be a survival trait in humans. That would mean that over our past history of thousands of years, individuals who knew how to trade effectively had a better chance of survival than those who did not. That is a concept worthy of consideration. And, that could be the source of our mathematical ability. Otherwise, I do not see the necessity for math in order to act successfully in the physical world. To demonstrate my point, let us consider the lioness, the bat and the porpoise.
The lioness, or the lioness in cooperation with the lion or another lioness, stalks the gazelle. The gazelle is not an easy animal to follow, intercept and capture. But, the lioness does it. The gazelle runs, jumps long distances, dodges, at times even appears to change direction while in the air in the middle of a jump. If a lioness and a gazelle were racing against one another on a straight race track, it would not be an easy win for the lioness. How do they intercept and capture the gazelle? Do they use math? Does the lioness have trigonometry in its brain? Does it use numbers to estimate the speed of the gazelle? This questions seems strange, because we do not usually think of any animal as being able to do math. Many humans consider themselves incapable of doing math. We have no experimental evidence to prove that lions do math or not, but I say that the burden of proof is on the mathematicians and the physicists. By that I mean it is reasonable for us to assume that the lioness does not do math. In order to revise this assumption, some physicist or mathematician has to do the work to demonstrate that lions and lionesses perform mathematical calculations when they hunt a gazelle. If they don't find that to be a worthy project, then they have to acknowledge what is actually a rather astounding observation about Nature: It is possible to do physics without math! For one predatory animal to intercept and capture another running, dodging and jumping animal, means that animal is acting successfully in the real physical world. It may not appear as "high tech" as rocket ships and missiles, but in fact it is incredibly high technology. Thus far, it is not possible for us to construct an artificial intelligence that can run on legs and catch a gazelle or a rabbit. We have had a difficult time constructing a robot that can walk on a sidewalk. An animal that pursues and catches another animal is "doing physics." They are acting in the physical world, observing a rapidly moving object and predicting its next move, and responding to its changes in speed or direction. It is doing all this without counting anything or performing any mathematical operations. Therefore, I say that Nature is not mathematical, we are mathematical, and we alone do not comprise the whole of Nature. This brings me back to the theological issues. For a physicist or mathematician to say that "Nature is mathematical" is just as anthropomorphic as a theologian saying that God is an old man with a white beard. If we are going to examine the imaginary "battle" between science and religion with our eyes open, and our minds open, we have to see that some scientists try to impose their visions of reality on others quite the same way as do our stereotypes of religious authoritarians. Nature is not necessarily mathematical, any more than it is physical or biological, or electrochemical. Nature simply is, and everything we have to say about Nature reflects both what we perceive and our methods of communication, not Nature itself.
The bat also pursues and captures a flying moth by echolocation. The porpoise pursues swimming fish and determines the positions of obstacles and enemies in the water by means of echolocation. Both animals, both mammals, send out sound signals and listen to the returning echoes. It is not necessary for them to count the returning echoes, or add or subtract anything. They need only have a sense of time in their brains, and the ability to sense when the echoes are closer together or further apart. Closer echoes means the object is closer. They too can do physics without math. Let's revisit Chapter One, where I said that I believe the science fiction of our encounters with aliens will soon come true. And, how that might impact on our science and theology. Here's a funny little version of our first encounter. A physicist, of course, thinks that the intelligent aliens must want to converse with him, since he is naturally of the more intelligent variety of human, and because he talks mathematics, the language of the universe. (The truth is, the aliens find young women far more interesting than old physicists of either gender.)
The physicist says, "Tell us about your math, how you power your space ships, and how you travel faster than the speed of light."
The alien answers, "Math? What's math?"
The physicist says, "You know: numbers, counting, algebra, differential equations, topology, vector analysis, probability, matrices. That stuff."
The alien answers, "Oh yes, math. That is very interesting what you do, the number stuff and all that. We don't use math. We use schmugglefritz."
"Schmugglefritz?" The physicist gasps. "What on earth is 'schmugglefritz'?"
The alien explains, "Schmugglefritz is our sense of energy, electrical or magnetic or gravitational energy. That's how we measure everything. We just sense things, that's all."
Wouldn't that be a kick in the head. If we find out that technologically superior beings who travel through space don't even use math the way we do. We are so certain that they will, because math provides us with precision. And, precision is necessary for truth, and technology, and science. Still, living animals can do physics without math. Can intelligent humanoids who do great physics do it all without math? Remember, Nature does not have to be like us, or constructed according to our perceptions. Our perceptions are designed to serve a two-legged and two-handed animal who eats everything, likes to take things apart, and likes to trade. The fact that math is our intellectual tool means that we can make a mathematical description of Nature. But, if math is a language, then a mathematical description of Nature is a linguistic description. And, all linguistic descriptions of Nature are symbolic; they are not Nature itself. Nature therefore, is not any more likely to be mathematical than it is likely to be English, Russian or Chinese. Again, we are returned, unavoidably even when discussing math, to the problem of what is the difference between how we perceive reality and how that reality is objectively detached from our perceptions. This problem does not belong strictly in the briefcases of physicists. It belongs in the schools of psychology, and in church.
A response to Einstein's relativity
Internal time is implied by Einstein's vision of physical reality and the mathematics of the Lorentz Transformation, but neither Einstein nor the physicists of the twentieth century could let go of the concept of external time, that is, time as an independent reality or "dimension" of the universe (length, width, height, time). The phrase "Lorentz Transformation" may sound like something an ordinary person cannot understand. However, that mathematical jargon refers to a method of using two sets of variables in a series of mathematical operations for the purpose of measuring the length of an object which is moving relative to the observer or "measurer." Your ability to fully understand that mathematical procedure, or any mathematical procedure, is dependent on the ability of someone else to explain it to you. There is an old Vermont story about a witness who was asked by a hostile attorney how good his eyesight was. He answered that he could see the sun and they say that is ninety-three million miles away. The student can see when the teacher is sufficiently bright.
In the book by Albert Einstein, Relativity, we are referred in Chapter Four: "The Galilean System of Coordinates," to the accepted "law of inertia" which we inherited from Galileo and Isaac Newton:
"A body removed sufficiently far from other bodies continues in a state of rest or of uniform motion in a straight line."
Einstein's theoretical work is a fantastic technology (system of measurement) but not science (accurate explanation of reality) because this fundamental "law of inertia" is incorrect. There is no such thing in the universe as "a body removed sufficiently far from other bodies." There is no such thing in the universe as an object that is "standing still," or "at rest" or moving "in a straight line." In reality, all objects are subject to the inescapable trioforce of the universe. The force of gravity, however weak it may be at great distances, is still a force no matter how great the distance. This is true in accordance with the mathematical definition of gravitational force which can be found in textbooks about physics. There is a psychological problem involved here in that we, including Galileo and Newton and Einstein, have inherited an historical bias. We have great difficulty conceiving of "action at a distance." What that means is that we have difficulty believing it is possible for any force, or "energy" to be communicated from one object to another when they are separated by a very large distance. However, gravitational force is defined as a force which is dependent upon the distance between the two (or more) objects. As the objects get closer, the gravitational attraction increases. That is why we say that it is possible, by means of sufficient opposing force, to "escape" the force of gravity. But, what we have done is unconsciously compromised our definition of gravity as though it exists at only relatively short distances but not at very long distances, such as millions of light years. We have no scientific basis to do that. The most fundamental principle of science is that the presence of any matter or energy will influence any other matter or energy that is present. This is the logical necessity of cause and effect, the way in which human beings know that events are the results of preceding events.
My description of the physical reality, meaning an accurate explanation of motion in the universe is that:
A) There are more than three objects (and possibly additional forces) in the universe;
B) Therefore, all objects are subject to three or more vectorial (directional) forces
C) Therefore, every object in the universe is moving in a spiral path:
D) The spiral path of an object can appear to be circular, or even straight or oscillatory (wavelike) to a calculating observer depending on the method
of observation, or measurement, and depending on the reference, or lack
of reference, to the pattern of motion over longer periods of time. (This
principle regarding calculating observers can best be exemplified by the
observational descriptions of a bullet, an artillery shell, a planet, a solar
system and then a galaxy).
E) The end result of these principles (A through D) is that our concept of the
"law of inertia" is analogous to the old perception that the Earth is flat.
We learned that it was a globe when our methods of observation and
measurement could accommodate larger objects, or larger patterns of
movement. Flatness is not attainable on a large scale due to the force of gravity. There is no such thing as a "flat planet" anywhere in the universe,
and there is no such thing as an object "at rest" or moving in a straight line.
All objects are subject to three or more vectorial forces; all objects are
moving in a spiral path. Some objects may be moving in a very complex
spiral path if they are subjected to oscillatory or alternating forces (for
example, a planet influenced by another very large body that travels in
an elliptical orbit that brings the other body close and then very far away).
Einsteinian mathematics is a complex method for measuring the motions of objects which travel in either an apparently straight line, or on a curved path. Even light, being photon objects, travels a curved path over cosmic distances. Our maps of the stars are not accurate, and will not be accurate until we learn how to incorporate the curved path of light over cosmic distances.
Think of yourself as standing still in a thinly wooded area, holding a pistol, and aiming it at a target fifty meters away. You are standing still relative to the ground, and to the surrounding trees, and relative to the planet Earth. You pull the trigger and the pistol fires. The bullet is moving rapidly in a straight line (relatively), and hits the target in a very short period of time, less than a second. If we wish to be very accurate in our measurements, the bullet did not travel in exactly a straight line relative to the Earth. It was subject to the force of gravity and it fell as it was traveling toward the target. It probably fell only a small fraction of a centimeter. If the bullet were to be fired a long distance, such as five-hundred meters, from a rifle, you would account for the fall one of two ways. Either you would aim high, or you would adjust the sight, if you had an adjustable sight. If there were a strong crosswind from your right to your left, you would aim to the right in order to account for the fact that the wind would "carry" the bullet to the left while on its trajectory to the target, unless you also had a sophisticated sight that could adjust for such a crosswind. Now, relative to the sun, you are traveling in a spiral path, because you are rotating in circles on the surface of the Earth, and at the same time you are traveling with the entire planet in its orbit around the sun. That path, or trajectory, would trace out a spiral path. The bullet would also travel in a spiral path relative to the sun, but it would be modified in accordance with the orientation of the "straight line" trajectory to the equator of the Earth. If you were on the equator and fired in the direction of rotation, the bullet would be traveling on a circular path faster than the point from which you fired (until it slowed down or stopped). If you were on the equator and fired in the direction opposite from the direction of rotation, the bullet's path would be slower than the point from which you fired. It you faced north and fired, the bullet's path would follow a curve relative to the line of longitude (meaning usually degrees west of Greenwich, England, on an imaginary line from the South Pole to the North Pole). In all cases imaginable, the bullet would travel on a spiral path. You are traveling on a spiral path, and that spiral path is traveling on a spiral path with the entire solar system, because the entire solar system circles around the center of our galaxy and our entire galaxy travels through space, relative to other galaxies or relative to some set of stationary, imaginary, reference-body coordinates. My position on the matter is that everything in the universe is subject to three or more vector forces, and therefore everything is moving on some pattern of spiral path, or multiples of spiral paths. Add any force, or change the quantity of force, and the path becomes "bumpy" or "squiggles" but still will trace out a form of spiral. For me, all of physics that is dependent on any reference to "inertia" or the concept of an object being "sufficiently distant from all other objects to not be subject to any force" is faulty, because no such object exists in the real universe. We actually have no hope of demonstrating the "inertia" of matter because we cannot locate an object which is "still." We can, using the mathematics of relativity, measure the motion of an object relative to whatever frame of reference we choose. That is great technology. But, it is not an explanation of what matter and energy are.
In Chapter Eight of Relativity Einstein discusses the idea of time in physics. The concept of time in physics is that time is something that exists outside (external to) the human mind (a calculating learning observer). In physics, Einstein wrote, a point of time occurs, and all events which occur in the universe at that point are "simultaneous." That concept of time is wrong. Therefore, Einsteinian mathematics is a fantastic artistic achievement of technology which enables us to calculate the motions of objects under the conditions that the internal time of different observers is treated as though it existed externally. That is, in fact, the reason why the motions of objects are relative. Einstein's theory says the measurements are relative because each moving body has its own coordinates of reference (reference-body) and each such reference-body carries with it its own time. For me, the reason the measurements are relative is strictly because time exists only internally in a calculating learning observer (a brain) and not anywhere in the universe outside of a memory. Therefore, another very important difference in my view of physical reality, is that for me only the measurements are different, not the reality. For me, there is no compression of time or compression of length in an object that is traveling very fast. Only the measurements may differ, depending on the method of measurement used. In my universe, which I of course believe to be scientifically correct, a rocket ship that is one hundred meters long standing still on the surface of the earth, is also the exact same length when if it is traveling in space at three fourths of the velocity of light. We would have difficulty measuring its length, because light is our medium of perception, our source of information about whatever we observe or measure. Therefore, our measurement could cause the ship to appear shorter, but, we could learn to compensate for the error caused by the circumstance, the same way that people with visual handicaps compensate for their misperceptions. Einstein's observations are still extremely helpful, but they are observations about human perception, not on the actual behavior of physical matter.
In Chapter Nine: "The Relativity of Simultaneity," Einstein wrote:
Every reference-body (coordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event.1
In Chapter Eleven: "The Lorentz Transformation," Einstein tells us that the propagation of light is constant, meaning the velocity of light is constant (and is the medium of perception). Therefore, in the case of two separate observers, when one observer "attached" to an object (or reference-body) in motion proceeds to measure distance traveled by another reference-body, that is, by another object in motion conveying another observer, the time factor is different for the two observers (gets adjusted by the mathematical formula of the Lorentz Transformation) because of the constant velocity of light for all observers. According the relativity theory, these results apply when one observer measures the length of an object also, as well as that object's velocity.
In Chapter Twelve: "The Behavior of Measuring-Rods and Clocks in Motion," using two reference-bodies for two different references of observation (Einstein used a train traveling on a track and "embankment" as the example of two observers in motion relative to one another) and the Lorentz Transformation math formulas, which yield two different results, Einstein concluded:
The rigid rod is thus shorter when in motion than when at rest, and the more quickly it is moving, the shorter is the rod. For the velocity v = c [meaning the velocity of light] we should have ™1 - v2/c2 = 0, and for still greater velocities [faster than light] the square root [result of the math formula] becomes imaginary [negative length]. ... From this we conclude that in the theory of relativity the velocity c [of light or any electromagnetic radiation] plays the part of a limiting velocity, which can neither be reached nor exceeded by any real body. ........................
A priori it is quite clear that we must be able to learn something about the physical behavior of measuring-rods and clocks from the equations of transformation, for the magnitudes of x,y,z,t, are nothing more nor less than the results of measurements obtainable by means of measuring-rods and clocks. If we had based our considerations on the Galileian transformation we should not have obtained a contraction of the rod as a consequence of its motion.2
In other words, Einstein, the scientist of the twentieth century who was elevated to divinity by the church of scientists, stated that what we perceive and the results of our measurements is reality. The field of psychology, which studies the mind of the scientist (whether it be yours or Einstein's), teaches us that reality is separate from what we perceive; our method of measurement and our perception can be a misperception or a misinterpretation of external reality. Psychological science as well as philosophy teach us that we must examine our mechanisms of perception with a degree of diligence which is directly proportional to our hunger for reality. If we believe only what our senses perceive, we could conclude that the Earth is flat and the stars revolve around the Earth.
The reality that time is strictly internal to memory and to the calculating learning observer is implied by both Einstein's Theory of Relativity and the math formula called the "Lorentz Transformation." However, the entire contrivance was built to conform to doctrines which must be questioned and which will soon be discredited. The physicists' belief in external time is the equivalent of a religious belief or a religious doctrine. It is not an accurate explanation of the real, physical universe. We possess a perception of time, of countable intervals or of a direction in events, because we possess memory and consciousness. The law of the universe (natural laws) with reference to time is thus:
A) No memory equals no time.
B) No consciousness equals no learning.
C) Any being that can learn possesses some measure of consciousness.
Einstein is persistent as the good soldier for the local religion. In Chapter Fourteen: "The Heuristic Value of the Theory of Relativity," he stated: "The law of the transmission of light, the acceptance of which is justified by our actual knowledge, played an important part in this process of thought." 3
No! The "law of the transmission of light" is not justified by our knowledge. The physicists do not understand why light acts like a wave and also like a particle. Neither do they understand what "pure energy" is. The physicists have behaved the same as priests: they have elevated their beliefs to the level of known facts and taught their beliefs as facts to the people. They have displaced the theological church with a scientific church, being a source of authority and doctrines which are accorded sacred status and which can be questioned only by members of the authoritarian class. Look at what Einstein wrote in Chapter Fourteen:
This is a definite mathematical condition that the theory of relativity demands of a natural law and in virtue of this, the theory becomes a valuable heuristic aid [learning tool] in the search for general laws of Nature.4
Did you get that right? Einstein said that the Theory of Relativity makes a demand on Nature, that is, a natural law must conform to the "mathematical condition" based on the constant velocity of light, the belief that no object can exceed the velocity of light, and the belief that when our measurement of an object traveling faster results in a shorter measurement of length, the object we have measured really is shorter when it moves faster. This conclusion will be proven wrong. The measurement is not the reality. We adjust our responses to the realities which we perceive. If, due to a brain injury, everything suddenly appeared to you to be about one foot to the left of where it actually was, you would at first be disoriented, but would later adjust. Your perception of where objects actually were located would soon be "normal," because we use our senses for effective functioning in the real world. The fact that an object traveling very fast might appear shorter to an observer measuring its length, depending on the method of measurement and not only the velocity of the object being measured, is not about the physical reality of the object; it is about the perception of the observer. We would have to deal with the real object, its real velocity, its real length and its real location. We would have to adjust the results of our measurements to conform to reality, not to the misperception brought about by the circumstance of high velocity. Relativity is technology and it is good technology. It is not an accurate description of or explanation of the real physical universe.
Further discussion should help to clarify my position with regard to Einstein and relativity. I never in my life believed I would "challenge" the scientific divinity of Albert Einstein. Simply arguing that Einstein was wrong about anything makes me feel like I am committing some kind of moral offense. It truly never occurred to me that I was opposing the ideas of Albert Einstein until late in the year of 1997. At that time, I could no longer deny that my view is that Einstein presented a method of measurement as an accurate description of the physical universe. This is where I disagree.
In Chapter Fifteen: "General Results of the Theory," Einstein wrote:
The success of the Faraday-Maxwell interpretation of electromagnetic action at a distance resulted in physicists becoming convinced that there are no such things as instantaneous actions at a distance (not involving an intermediary medium) of the type of Newton's law of gravitation. According to the theory of relativity, action at a distance with the velocity of light always takes the place of instantaneous action at a distance or of action at a distance with an infinite velocity of transmission. This is connected with the fact that the velocity c [of light] plays a fundamental role in this category.5
In Chapter Seventeen: "Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Space," Einstein explains how the Theory of Relativity incorporates time t as a dimensional factor in the description of any physical event:
... the world of physical phenomena ... is naturally four-dimensional in the space-time sense. For it is composed of individual events, each of which is described by four numbers, namely, three space coordinates x, y, z, and a time coordinate, the time-value t. The "world" is in this sense also a continuum; for to every event there are as many "neighboring" events (realized or at least thinkable) as we care to choose, the coordinates x1, y1, z1, t1, of which differ by an indefinitely small amount from those of the event x, y, z, t originally considered.6
What I say we must do in order to be intellectually free and not oppressed by doctrines of the church of science is acknowledge that the physical universe does not have to conform to limitations which fall within our perception or comprehension. I am only saying the same thing that physicists have said all along: the physical universe does not have to conform to our expectations; the physical universe does not have to be consistent with our "common sense." This is what physicists say when a lay person wonders in apparent psychological pain as to why and how a rigid object could be compressed in length when it is traveling at a very high velocity. The physicist, weary of trying to explain the esoteric math of relativity to a lay person, says: The natural laws of the universe are not necessarily consistent with our "common sense." Just as the sun appears to revolve around the Earth, but does not, objects are not always of the same size or mass, but their mass is actually dependent on their velocity. I say that the Theory of Relativity is a mathematical contrivance, and a very useful technology, built to conform to certain doctrines or taboos:
1) There can be no action at a distance (without an intermediary medium);
2) There is something special about the velocity of light in that no object in the
universe can exceed the velocity of light;
3) Energy exists but is in some measurable way the equivalent of matter;
4) Time is a dimension of the external physical universe, and the unfolding
of the action of the universe is a space-time continuum.
These scientific doctrines, sacred monuments equally as immovable as any theological doctrine ever invented, need to be questioned no matter how difficult the task.
First: It is possible that there is action at a distance with no intermediary medium. It is also possible that gravity is a form of energy that travels much faster than the speed of light and therefore it appears to communicate from one object to another instantaneously. It will appear to us to be instantaneous until we develop a technology to measure its velocity. This is analogous to the fact that humans thought light traveled at an infinite velocity until we developed a technology to measure its finite, but very large velocity. We will most likely encounter great difficulties in trying to design a technology (an experimental apparatus) to measure the velocity of gravity, because thus far we have no idea how to manipulate gravity (if it is a form of energy) the way that we can manipulate light. We can reflect light with a reflective surface. We can refract light with a transparent liquid or solid. We can initiate the projection of light and terminate the projection of light (by using an electrical switch). We can do no such thing with gravity. Also, light does not penetrate all matter. It can be stopped. Gravity does not appear to possess the same limitation. If we are on one side of the Earth, and the moon is on the other side and we cannot see it, we are still influenced by the gravity of the moon. That is, we have no reason to believe that the gravity of the moon is "blocked" by the mass of the Earth in the same way that the light of the moon is blocked by the mass of the Earth. I have attempted to envision an experiment that might detect the velocity of gravity, but I do not believe I have succeeded yet.
Second: There is not necessarily anything sacred about the velocity of light. For any other medium of perception, that is for sound or for any other hypothetical medium of perception that has a velocity different from that of light, the results of the Lorentz Transformation also hold true. Whatever the medium of perception, the observer cannot "add velocity" to a moving object that is already traveling at the velocity of the medium of perception. The conclusions which assign the velocity of light a special role in the laws of the universe is a "human centered" doctrine based on the fact that light is the fastest and therefore most useful medium of perception for study of physical events. Just as the sun does not have to revolve around the Earth just because it appears to do so, also the physical objects of the universe do not have to be limited by the velocity of electromagnetic radiation simply because our sensory neurology is limited by the velocity of light.
Third: Energy is a profound problem to both our common sense and the science of physics. What is it? Where is it? We assign different names to different "forms" of energy: "kinetic" energy (for motion of objects), "chemical" energy (for chemical interactions), "electrical" energy or power (for the force of moving electrons), "electromagnetic radiation" (for light and other forms of wave-particle radiated energy), "heat" energy (for the agitation of molecules or the result of infrared radiation). That is not the end of it. People sometimes make reference to "sexual" energy or "psychological" energy. We use the word "force" as a synonym for "energy." Therefore, if we observe the usual rules for linguistic syntax, then we cannot say the definition of energy is "a force." It would require the murder of language to try to elaborate on the difference in meaning between the word "force" and the word "energy." What we need to do, as outrageous as it may sound, is examine the possibility that energy is a fiction of consciousness, the same as time is a fiction of consciousness. Just because we perceive movement and action does not mean that the action is caused by this ephemeral, indefinable, intangible, immeasurable (without reference to matter) thing called energy. It is possible that energy is an invention of the human mind to explain what matter does. It is possible that all events in the physical universe are strictly interactions between matter and matter. If that is the case, then there is no such thing as energy being an entity separate and distinct from matter. This is not the same thing as saying that matter is interchangeable with energy or is a form of energy. What I am saying is that it is possible there is no such thing as energy but our brains form the concept of energy as a means to cope with the reality that action occurs in the real world. To our brains, that action has to be "caused" by something. We say that the event is caused by "energy," but it could be that the event is caused only by matter. All of our measurements of energy, which are always measurements of the impact of the supposed "energy" on the observed matter, might therefore be a phenomena of the mind, not a reality of the universe. If this viewpoint were correct, then energy would be a fiction of consciousness, and the only "thing" in the universe would be matter. Don't get upset. This is not any crazier than a rocket ship that gets shorter as it travels faster.
Fourth: For me, the continuum of "space-time" is nothing more than saying that because we perceive a continuum there is a continuum. That is, we perceive one event lead to another, or some events lead to others. As elaborate and complex as the mathematics of relativity is, it is still a phenomenon of human perception. The mathematics is in our brains, but not necessarily in the universe. Just because a technology yields good results does not mean it is a complete explanation of the physical reality in which that technology functions. In other words, my position is that after we have applied our relativity mathematical procedures, we have results consistent with other scientific observations which causes us to conclude that relativity is "right." However, it is right because the means by which we test the theory are subject to the same limiting doctrines as the theory itself. The theory and the doctrines (listed above) conform to one another. That is good and helpful, but it does not make relativity a description of the real universe (independent of our perceptions). We can learn about realities that are different from what we "perceive," such as the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun, and disease is caused by agents we do not see, hear, or feel. We accomplish this by tools which extend our senses and analytical thought. Therefore, it is not true that our reality is made of only what we "perceive" in the strict sense. Our brains enable us to conceive of a reality that is objective and independent of the limitations of our senses.
When we measure time, as is true for anything we measure, we perceive that we can make smaller and smaller distinctions, or "discriminations" as would be said in the field of psychology. That is, in the field of psychology, it is considered very important to know what are the limits, or at least average limits, of the sound waves we can perceive as different from other sound waves. What are the colors we can perceive as different from other colors. What are the tactile surfaces we perceive as different from other touchable surfaces (smooth, rough, prickly, furry, et cetera). We know, with use of a microscope, that a surface that feels smooth to our fingers can appear "mountainous" in magnification. That is a fairly good example of what is meant by the limits of "discrimination" of our senses. One of our senses of discrimination is the measurement, or counting, of time intervals. As I said earlier, time is something that we count. And, every time interval conceivable which is worth counting has to have some kind of cyclic reliability. You would not count your grandfather's burps for a reliable measure of time. If you think that time is something else other than counting reliable cyclic events, write a book about it. This is my way of saying that I am absolutely certain that my concept of time is right. Time exists only in a memory. Einstein and the physicists are in denial, or using the "not my department" routine, when they say that physical reality is a "space-time continuum." Our perception is a space-time continuum, because meaningful intelligence would be impossible without a function of counting time. However, the physical objects of the universe, the matter of the universe, does not need to have a memory in order to be or do what it does. In the real physical universe, there is no time. This concept alone, which must be explored if we wish to break the "taboos" of science, will change everything. The explanation of external reality must be liberated from the prison of time. To apply relativity and use it as an explanatory description of the real physical universe is to enclose external reality in the confines of our neurological calculating learning observer. That, we know, is not scientific.
Let's take a look at how another scientist explains relativity: Martin Gardner, in Relativity Simply Explained (Mineola: Dover Books, 1997). This is a later edition of Relativity for the Million, MacMillan, 1962, and a revision published in 1976 by Vintage Books (Random House) under the title The Relativity Explosion. Gardner acknowledges promptly on p. 11 that relativity is "... so revolutionary, so contrary to common sense..." that thousands of scientists do not understand it. We are therefore left to decide for ourselves whether Gardner understands it well enough to make us understand it, the same position we are in when there is any teacher before us. Learning from another person requires a clear transmission and a clear reception. On top of that, the information needs to be correct.
Gardner tells us that "There are, said Einstein, only local times." 7 To Gardner also then, Einstein did not make the jump that I do, all the way across the chasm, to argue that time is a strictly internal function in memory. According to Gardner, Einstein argued that time existed externally, but locally, attached to each reference-body, or frame of reference. Gardner says something that is substantially different, to my reading, than what Einstein said in his book. With regard to the relationship between our measurement of reality, and a distinctly separate and objective reality, Gardner says:
The theory does not say that each ship is shorter than the other, it says that astronauts on each ship measure the other ship as shorter. This is a quite different matter. If two people stand on opposite sides of a huge concave lens, each sees the other as smaller, but that is not the same as saying that each is smaller.8
But Einstein at least implied (I think he actually said it) that measuring-rods and clocks really do change their lengths and times when accelerated at high velocities. This is where I disagree with both Einstein and Gardner. Only two pages later Gardner says something that appears to be quite different:
The fact that these bewildering changes of length and time are called 'apparent' does not mean that there is a 'true' length or time which merely 'appears' different to different observers. ... There is no way that measurements can be any truer. In no sense are they optical illusions, to be explained by a psychologist. They can be recorded on instruments. They do not require a living observer.9
Gardner is surely a brilliant person and an effective writer, but I disagree on his implication that results recorded by instruments can only record the truth. Instruments are also subjective in that they record or measure by means of a medium of perception. That is, they measure by means of sound or light, such as sonar and radar. All measuring instruments are extensions of our own senses. We use electromagnetic radiation to transmit and receive information because it is the fastest medium of perception we are aware of. We know of no other better means to transmit a coded message, or an "influence" from one location to another. We could conceivably turn on a television on the Moon by sending an electromagnetic signal from Earth. All we would need is an instrument a lot like a remote control used in the average home, but with a lot more power. Gardner acknowledges this as fact (to him, and many others):
"A message cannot be sent to Mars with a speed greater than the speed of light. ... No other type of energy can provide a faster transmission of the code." 10
Gardner's language implies here and in other parts of his book (pp. 48 - 49) that for scientists the measurement is the reality. There is an important point here, which I accept in a certain respect. I do agree that our perceptions, and our methods of measuring and calculating, do produce the structure of our knowledge of reality. However, that does not mean there is no objective reality that is different from our perception of it. For me, relativity is subject to explanation from a psychological perspective, in terms of the potential for human perception (and instrumentation perception) to be different from the reality perceived. This is a key concept, and it is the basis for my argument that relativity theory should be called "Media of Perception Theory." The ancient Greeks who were brilliant believed there were four elements: air, earth, water and fire. We now know that ninety-two elements occur naturally. How many forms of energy are we aware of: kinetic, electromagnetic, electrical (electrons moving through solid matter), chemical, heat (if distinguished from radiation). What if there are as many forms of energy as there are atomic elements? Sounds wild, I know. But, we were off by eighty-eight forms of matter. Does history repeat itself? Note that Gardner, even an eloquent popularizer of hard science, used the phrase "type of energy" when referring to electromagnetic radiation (light). They all do it. It is like the Zen Buddhist concept that words cannot convey the ultimate truth. If light is a "type of energy," then what is energy in general? Why is it that when we measure light we are measuring photons, which are particles? Even if a physicist argues that when we measure light we are measuring waves, then I cannot help but ask, waves of what through what?
Gardner explains clearly and argues more lucidly than Einstein, I believe, that relativity theory tells us the velocity of light is a "barrier" for the transmission or communication between two material bodies.11 However, there are contradictory statements in Gardner's book. On pp. 48 - 51 he gives examples where two objects are traveling at more than the velocity of light relative to one another (two spaceships traveling in opposite directions is one example), and explains that if either of the observers in motion measure the velocity of the other observer in motion, the result will be a velocity less than the velocity of light. Here, it is clearly implied that the measurements are distinctly different from the reality, whereas earlier Gardner said that there can be no truer measurements. For me, the accurate and correct explanation of this phenomenon is to reframe Relativity Theory as Media of Perception Theory, which tells us that for any medium of perception, when we use the useful mathematical measurements of relativity, we cannot obtain a velocity that is greater than the velocity of the medium of perception. That conclusion is in fact very compatible with our old time "common sense." How could any sentient being, or instrument, measure the velocity of an object traveling faster than the medium which provides us, or it, with the perception (or message code) of where it is located at any given moment in our (or the instrument's) internal time? In other words, if someone is going to pass by you at the speed of sound, and shout at you as they go by, how could you use their shouting as the means to calculate their velocity? For me, all of this esoteric science is due simply to the fact that light is the fastest medium of perception we are both aware of and able to manipulate. I have a very strong feeling there is more. I suspect that gravity is a form of energy that travels possibly thousands of times faster than light.
Gardner does a great job of explaining how, according to relativity theory, gravity and inertia are actually the same thing, a form of acceleration. Around a large body, such as a planet or a star, the mass of matter creates a "gravitational field." This could be thought of as similar in general conception to a magnetic "field." The gravity of a planet is described in relativity theory in geometric terms in the form of a broad, funnel-shaped curve of space underneath a large ball, similar to the result observable if a bowling ball were placed on a thick pad of foam rubber. But no matter how it is conceptualized, scientists still are challenged by the issue as to whether gravity is a form of energy, and whether there is some way to confirm, or discredit, the concept that no influence can be transmitted over a distance except by some medium of "energy." Referring to the relativistic concept of the curvature of spacetime, Gardner asks: "Does this warping take place instantaneously through space or does it propagate like a wave motion?" 12 Some scientists have searched for "graviton" particles. Again, we have not resolved the issue as to whether there exists a thing, energy, which is distinct and separate from matter. However, neither have we sufficient scientific evidence to conclude that energy and matter are truly "equivalent." They appear to be not equivalent by our own definitions of them, and yet, when we attempt to define energy more clearly, we always refer to it in terms of its impact on matter. My position, therefore, is that science is just as political as religion. The physicists do the same thing as any bureaucrat. They cannot solve the problem we want them to solve, so they create another problem which they think they can solve. Even then, they often are unable to solve the simpler problems which they have chosen over the harder questions which we want answered. The physical scientists reject psychology because it knocks them off their high horse. As the path of psychological knowledge leads from behavioral analysis to neurobiology and neurochemistry and molecular biology, the horse tramples the physicist underfoot. There is a physical reality, and there are devices, including organic brains, which possess memories and means of perceiving, calculating, and learning. The neurological means to accomplish these functions must unavoidably impose limitations on the perceptions themselves, and the conceptualization of the external reality. Therefore, an intelligent being would naturally produce a much better understanding of the external reality by improving their knowledge of the instrument that examines that external reality. Hence, if you want to know what information is conveyed by a photograph, you need to know how a camera works. A holographic camera works differently from an ordinary two-dimensional camera, and that is why the "reality" projected by a holographic "photo" is different from that of a "planographic" photo (a camera that reproduces a light image on a two-dimensional plane surface). If I were in charge of research funding, I would give eighty percent of the available funds to the neurobiologists and the molecular biologists. By knowing ourselves better, we will learn far more about the external physical world which can exist independently of our brains, than by continuing to equate our internal perceptions and concepts with external reality.
Spiral Path Theory of Light, no experimental apparatus, yet:
In March of 1998 I formulated a plan for an experimental apparatus to demonstrate electromagnetic "energy" following a spiral path. I needed that part of the spectrum with wavelength and frequency falling within a workable range, being the microwaves. The wavelength of microwaves falls between one millimeter and ten centimeters. The frequency of the waves emitted by a microwave oven produces waves of a workable length, for example, one oven's wavelength output was about 4.8 inches. My plan did not work out. I do not presently have a design for an experimental apparatus that proves the existence of the spiral path. I will keep seeking such a design. The difficulty is that trying to measure the path of individual electromagnetic particles is not only on the outer edge of human perception, it is also on the outer edge of instrumental detection. Electromagnetic radiation is similar to electrical current in that an occurrence of radiation involves billions of particles traveling in the same direction of the "beam." They may cross paths, bump into one another, and their respective paths or "waves" are not necessarily synchronous with regard to the crests and troughs of the waveform. Further, we know that electromagnetic beams, similar to beams of light, respond differently to different materials or "mediums." That is, light is refracted by water or by a translucent prism, blocked by solid materials, highly reflected by a silvered mirror, partially reflected or screened by other types of barriers, such as a one-way mirror. The physicists say that light always travels at the same velocity through a vacuum. Where do we find a vacuum? Even space is not a perfect vacuum. It is difficult to create a vacuum in a large enclosed space. I do not have the materials and machines necessary to accomplish such a vacuum. However, it would not be necessary to "create" a vacuum in order to observe electromagnetic particles traveling through a vacuum. We are surrounded by such vacuums. Within any solid material, such as glass, steel, a block of pure water ice voided of any dissolved gases or matter in suspension, a block of pure gold or aluminum, are all a pattern of interlocking or bonded molecules, made up of bonded atoms, with "vacuum" between the molecules, and between the atoms in the molecules, and between the electrons and the nuclei in the atoms. It is not necessary for there to be "air pockets" in a block of solid matter. It should also be possible to create a "block" of pure liquid or gaseous matter, which also would have no "air pockets" within its molecular structure. For any matter which is transparent to microwaves, or other larger-amplitude electromagnetic waveforms, the particles probably travel through the "vacuum" of that matter, and "miss" the molecules of that matter. Therefore, to observe the path of electromagnetic particles, two very challenging techniques must be accomplished. One: a method to generate or emit only a very small number of particles (comparable to a flashlight so dim one would not see the light); and two: a means to detect the path of the particle through a three-dimensional space. The spiral-path theory is consistent with most or all of the present experimental evidence. At least some scientists will want to prove it wrong, to rule it out. Otherwise, there will develop a nagging suspicion that if the spiral-path theory is true, physicists will be wasting many years and billions of dollars on research which is a wild-goose chase after waveforms and fields that are neither energy nor matter and which may not exist.
The Red-Shift of Starlight is Not Necessarily Evidence of an Expanding Universe
Astrophysicists who are fond of discussing "time" as though it is a "dimension" of the physical universe, also have offered us an alternative creation story. The physicists creation story is that the universe was "created" by a cosmically large explosive event, often referred to as a "Big Bang." The essence of this theory is that all the matter of the universe was once, long ago, about 15 to 20 billion years ago, concentrated in a single mass. This could be described as a special kind of "black hole," which means a celestial body in which matter is so densely packed, and so forcefully held together by gravity, that nothing can escape its surface, not even electromagnetic energy. This theory, then, which I prefer to call the "explosive creation" theory, begins with a lump of concentrated matter which has no design or order or organic nature to itself. It is highly concentrated, but not necessarily "solid" in the sense that a ball of stone or steel appears very solid to us. Because it is so concentrated, it is influenced by tremendous and torturous forces inside itself. Due to those astounding forces, it explodes, quite suddenly at first, with great expansion in space and great changes in the matter taking place even in the first second of this cosmically long event. As the matter expanded, it gradually formed galaxies, stars, and planets, and all the vast spaces nearly empty of atoms in between. Accompanying this theory of an explosive creation is the viewpoint, based on a large body of meaningful evidence, that the universe is not uniform or symmetrical with regard to the distribution of matter. That is, if we could look at the entire known universe from a great distance, we would not see stars and galaxies or clouds of gases evenly spaced or spread out evenly. There are clumps of matter in the universe, which has been compared to frothy bubbles in sponge. Another analogy might be the uneven distribution of pieces of fruit in a bowl of gelatin. Therefore, even those scientists who support the explosive creation theory do not argue that the explosive action was uniform in its development. For some reason, more matter aggregated in some areas and not in others.
A piece of evidence which is very important, perhaps crucial, to defend the explosive creation theory, is the "red-shift" detected in light from cosmically distant sources. That means, that when astronomers use radio telescopes to measure the radiation coming from stars and galaxies that are ten million miles away, or more, the light "waves" appear to be "stretched out" which means the same thing as to say that the light waves are of slightly lower frequency. When we say that the light, or electromagnetic waves from a source of light, such as a distant star, are "stretched out" or "red-shifted," we are describing a phenomena that is like having the letter "W" held in your two hands. If we use that letter "W" as a symbol for the appearance of radiation waves viewed from the side, and if you pull the "W" apart, that is "stretch it out," the peaks (and troughs) of the waves are further apart. That is the same thing as a longer wavelength and a lower frequency. That is also the same thing, in the language and concepts of the physicist, as a loss of energy. The physicists explanation for this phenomena is that when we "see" the electromagnetic waves from a distant object, those waves are subject to effects similar to when we "hear" the sound waves coming from a distant object. If that distant object were a train, moving away from us, the sound from that train, such as a whistle, is different when the train is moving away from when it is moving toward us. The reason is that when the train is moving toward us the sound waves are "compressed," and when it is moving away from us the sound waves are "stretched out." Because our sense of hearing is in fact nothing more nor less than the ability to distinguish between sound waves of different frequencies, the sound from a source that is moving away is naturally different from the sound of a source that is moving toward us. That is obviously a very handy ability to have, since it is very useful for us to be able to determine when an object is moving away from us or toward us. However, in the case of the "red-shift" of light from cosmically distant objects, I reject the conclusions deduced by the astrophysicists. The body of experimental evidence offers a very different and logical explanation for electromagnetic waves to lose energy while traveling over cosmic distances.
First, let me refer again to my model of the spiral path theory of light, and the matter and energy theory of light. In my model, light is both a particle of matter and form of energy. The particle of matter is pushed, or carried, by the spiral swirl of the energy, along a "beam," which is analogous to a disk spinning and traveling flat side forward along a straight wire stretched taunt from one point to another. Therefore, in my model, when light travels over cosmic distances, it is not the "waves" that "stretch out" when the light loses energy, but the spiraling particle slows down in its spiral path, which means it completes fewer spiral circuits in a given period of time or space. Therefore, consistent with the current evidence, there is a "red-shift" of the electromagnetic phenomena from shorter to longer wavelengths, which is the same as a shift from greater to lesser frequencies. But, I rely on the acknowledged results of other physical experiments to deduce that the loss of energy over cosmic distances is due to gravity generally, and not to an expanding universe.
The physicists say that light behaves like a wave and like a particle, and that this is an inherent "quality of Nature." But, they do not say that light is a particle. I say that the photon particle is a body of matter. Therefore, it is influenced by the forces of gravity from other bodies of matter. The photon is so astoundingly small, however, that the influence of gravity on that photon is not detectable unless the other force is very large, such as the gravity of our sun. I argue that the influence of gravity is also significantly large, as a cumulative effect, when a photon has traveled over cosmic distances. The effect of that gravity over cosmic distances is to slow down the spiraling particle, to cause the beam of light to lose energy.
Here is the evidence. There is a famous experiment, deemed to support Einstein's theories of relativity, in which light from a distant star is observed when that star is positioned, relative to the position of Earth, very close to the edge of the sun. The light from that star is then observed to be "bent" by the gravitational force of the sun. The current interpretation of that phenomenon is that both energy and matter are "curved" by gravitational force, as described by the theories of relativity. For me, the concept of the "curvature of space" and the "curvature of time-space" are misleading nonsense, because they are only descriptions of the results of our measurements (meaning the results of our perceptions), and because time exists only in memories and not in the external world. To me, neither space nor time "curve." The limitations of our measurements and perceptions will cause our measurements of space and time to appear to curve under extreme conditions. In my model, the beam of light from the distant star includes the photon particle of matter which is carried by the force of the light energy, analogous to the way a tornado carries an object in its spiraling path. That photon particle is very, very small, and of very slight mass. But, the sun is very, very large and exerts a tremendous gravitational force. When the photon passes very near the sun, but not near enough to be captured by its gravity, the photon beam is bent. It is an event which is an interaction between two pieces of matter which are traveling at high speed past one another. One piece, the sun, is extremely large, and the other piece, the photon, is extremely small. Accordingly, we see the small particle influenced by the gravity of the sun. We cannot possibly detect the influence of the gravity of the particle on the body of the sun. There are other experiments, more complex in their design, involving the use of zero gravity conditions inside of vehicles in space, which tend to confirm that the measurement of light waves is influenced by the gravitational force, which is often described by physicists', as Einstein described it, as a form of "acceleration." That means that gravitational force has an effect on light waves similar to the effect that is perceived when a source of light waves is moving away from the observer, that is, the waves appear to "stretch out," are reduced in frequency, lose energy. These concepts are, to me, consistent with routine phenomena. For example, if you are playing outside on a sunny summer day, and a friend squirts you with a hose, then starts to run away from you, you will feel less force from the streaming water when that person is moving away from you. The impact of the force, or energy from that streaming water, is reduced when the source of that energy is moving away from you. However, it is also true that if that friend tries to squirt you with water from a great distance, the water might not even reach you. The molecules of water, carried by the water pressure, lose energy traveling over a long distance. Why should light be any different? Physicists are saying, if you listen to them, that there are different laws of physics for spaces that are extremely small, or extremely large. That is a theological statement, and a profound one. It even implies a modification of the most fundamental principle of science, which is that Nature operates according to laws, and those laws can be understood. If we did not believe that there are laws, or that we could understand them, we would have no good reason to conduct any experiment. In any case, the idea that there are different physical laws for events in the universe according to the size of the events is a profoundly theological idea. The physicists, whether they know it or not, think they are the new version of the Sacred College of Cardinals, or some form of Synod of Scientists. They speak as though their function, or at least one of their functions is to tell us how the world really is. The problem with this behavior is that they do not want the natural consequences that come with that function, which is, if you present yourself as one qualified to explain how the world really is, then you are presenting yourself as a theologian, not only as a scientist. And, theology, anyone's theology, is subject to those civil laws which guarantee freedom of speech and freedom of belief. I can question the physicist's cosmology. I do question the physicist's cosmology, and I am explaining why here.
Here is how the photon particle on an electromagnetic beam loses energy over cosmically long distances. Someone once said that if the universe is infinite in size (which the physicists have not claimed to have disproved yet), then wherever you are, you are always in the middle of it. That is an interesting concept. If it seems strange, or incomprehensible to you, don't worry about it. All this means is that even the visible universe (visible to radio telescopes, not just light telescopes) is incredibly large, and that at any given point near our planet there is a lot of universe in any direction. Suppose therefore, we are observing a beam of light passing by the Earth, or approaching the Earth, that is, we are observing that light beam "head on." If it is a particle of matter, it has been traveling through a universe which has much matter in it. In fact, we could try to estimate, if that particle came from a certain direction, approximately what percent of the matter of the universe has been primarily "behind" that particle, and what percent of the matter of the universe has been "in front" of the moving particle. We could also estimate what percent of matter is on either side, or off at an angle. This might be very difficult to do, but we have to concede that there is a very large quantity of matter behind, in front, and around that traveling photon. My position is that the net effect of all that gravity on that traveling photon is, usually, to slow it down, which means to cause it to lose energy, which means to cause a red shift in its wavelength (which for me is not wavelength but rather a "spiral circuit"). My position, I believe, is consistent with the experimental body of evidence. I interpret the evidence differently. This definitely would not be the first time that experimental evidence is subject to different interpretations. As I noted earlier, the current physical model demonstrates that light is influenced by gravity. By my interpretation, therefore, the red shift is only the influence of gravity on light over cosmic distances. The red shift, for me, is not evidence that the universe is expanding. My view is that all of the matter in the universe, in particular the "clumps," which means the stars and galaxies, relate to one another like the molecules of a gas in a jar. This is called Brownian motion (again by Einstein) and is sometimes described as a kind of "random" motion. What my view means, if accepted, is that the matter in the universe does not display a pattern of expansion from some central point. It also means that we have no alternative creation story from the scientists. All we have is a universe, and we have no persuasive scientific evidence with regard to where it all came from. It just is. It always was and always will be. We have no meaningful evidence of a "beginning" of the universe, no meaningful evidence of some thing or event which caused or is the source of the universe. Stated differently, if the explosive creation proposed by the astrophysicists is discredited, then they no longer have a meaningful alternative creation story to offer us. At least not for now. Still, I would like to discuss my views on why we have been offered this "alternative creation story" by scientists. It is, primarily, because they are human.
Religious creation stories have been viewed, in the stereotype of the physicist, as superstitions. But, the physicist also gives us the "law of the conservation of matter" which states that matter cannot be created or destroyed, but only transformed. Simply put, because the physicist studies matter, the question is always present, whether consciously or not, as to what matter is and where it "came from." This appears at first to be a strictly theological or cosmological question, but still, the physicist cannot convincingly argue that it is of no concern to him, or her. Scientists often see themselves as people who have a mission in life to combat superstition and myth and replace it with knowledge and truth. Therefore, if there are powerful myths in the world, they must be opposed by powerful science. If religion has offered creation stories that people believe, then the scientists feel compelled, perhaps subconsciously, to offer an alternative, "more scientific," creation story. That is exactly what the "Big-Bang" theory is. It is a theory of the origin of the universe. It is a description of a beginning event. It is an explanation of where the matter of the universe came from. It is a description of a phenomenon which is labelled as creative. That is, the universe, in the Big-Bang theory, was created by an explosion. I will note that some physicists, those with a little common humility, concede that this current model of the universe does not dictate what occurred before the primal explosion, or even whether anything did exist prior to that primal explosion. What is wrong here, however, is that it is a creation story, and it is based--again whether physicists are consciously aware of this or not--on a hidden assumption that the universe was created or had some beginning origin or event. This must be some concept hard wired into our brain: that if something exists it must have had a birth. That might not be a law of our real universe. It may be that matter exists but did not have a "birth." Maybe it always was and always will be. What is so hard about that? It is, it seems, a psychological problem, for scientists as well as for "nonscientists." (For me, there is no such thing as a human "nonscientist." We are all, by definition, scientists, because we learn from experience. Practice varies.)
If you believe in the explosive origin of the universe, and that it is continuing to expand, then you believe a new creation story. For me, it is no different in quality from any other creation story, in that it is a statement of an event which no one, possibly not even God (if God is a supreme or superior being who lives in our universe), was present to witness. There is no memory, no record, no tree rings, no radioactive information (which I will explain immediately following) which can tell us what occurred that long ago. We cannot identify and describe the origin of existence. It is beyond our reach. We should exert our efforts elsewhere.
All Forms of Radioactive or Atomic Dating are Not Reliable
Radioisotope dating, now preferably called "nuclide" dating, and other types of "atomic" dating such as fission tracking or racemization, all rely on changes taking place in atoms (or molecules) at a regular rate of time. That means that the regular, measurable, and predictable "decay" or half-life of a radioactive nuclide can be used as a "clock" to determine the age of an old piece of matter. This concept, if reliable, would be useful for dating a fossil bone, an organism trapped in amber, or any mineral rock. An isotope or nuclide is a variation of an element where the atom is a little different: There are more neutrons than protons in the nucleus. The proton to neutron ratio of the nucleus makes that nuclide "unstable" and that means radioactive. A radioactive atom will radiate one of its particles within a given period of time. That time period is not predictable for an individual atom. But, a piece of any element or compound which includes a radioisotope form of matter, will naturally contain millions or billions of atoms of such radioactive substance. Therefore, by the application of statistical methods, and a very large record of experimental evidence, the "half-life" of specified radioisotope substances is predictable with an acceptable degree of precision. That is, the half-life for Uranium 238 is 4,500,000,000 years; for Potassium 40 is 1,300,000,000 years; for Carbon 14 is 5,730 years; for Radium 88 is 1,620 years; and so on. The half-life means the period of time in which one half of the radioactive atoms have "decayed" or radiated particles and changed to the more stable version of that element. Fission tracking and racemization, though a little more complicated, also are conceived as a means to measure changes at the atomic or molecular level in a very old substance. The problem with all of these "atomic" methods of dating is that they would be reliable only in an environment where nothing occurred to change the rate at which the half-life of a nuclide, or the other atomic or molecular changes take place. We have no such environment on Earth, because the Earth is struck by lightning at a very high rate, much higher than most people are aware of. One reputable encyclopedia states that lightning strikes the earth 100 times per second. That is 360,00 times per hour, 8,640,000 times per day, 315 billion times in a hundred years, 3.153 trillion times in a thousand years, and 3.1536 x 1015 times in a million years. The reality of this situation is inescapable: for any matter on Earth more than a thousand years old, we cannot know how many times it has been struck by lightning or changed by a near strike of lightning. Obviously, it could be many times for an object believed to be more than a million years old.
Lightning, though a familiar sight to many people, with its accompanying sound of thunder, is an extremely powerful force that is not well understood. The force of a stroke of lightning is believed to be about one million volts, and at times as high as 100 million volts, delivering one thousand amperes of electrical current. It can raise the temperature in its immediate vicinity to 50,000 or 60,000 degrees Fahrenheit briefly. The body of experimental evidence tells us that the energy levels of the electrons which are circling the nucleus can be influenced by electrical energy or magnetic energy. Physicists have caused electrons to "jump" from one level of energy up to the next in the atomic shell. When we heat a metal filament or a gas to cause the emission of light, such as in an ordinary light bulb, we are using electrical force (the same as the force of lightning) to change particles bound inside the atom into radiating photons of light. That means that particles are being ejected, due to the electrical energy, from the material and those same particles become the photons of light which we see. If the few volts in a standard home electrical circuit are enough to rip particles away from atoms, then how many particles were ripped away from a "sample" of fossil bone or mineral rock each time that it has been struck by lightning? It is not reasonable to assert that an object more than ten thousand years old was never struck by lightning. Therefore, for all material older than our recorded history, any atomic dating method of measurement will cause that material to appear far older than it really is. Because we cannot even rely on statistics to tell us how many times a piece of material was struck, a truly objective person will conclude that we do not know of any reliable method to date very old material. This holds true also for material in other planets and in outer space. Because, again, the experimental or observational records shows that there is as much, or more electrical activity in the atmospheres of other planets, and there are electrical phenomena we know little about in other formations in space such as clouds of gas or pre-galactic formations. We have just begun to learn what is the meaning of electrical energy in the universe, which is described in understandable prose in The Big Bang Never Happened.
Because the "atomic-change" methods of measuring the age of an old material are not reliable, none of the dating performed by those methods are reliable evidence of the age of the universe. Therefore, with no reliable evidence of the age of the universe, another rug is pulled out from under the "Big-Bang" scientific creation story. Scientists could conduct controlled experiments, to determine if somehow one million volts does not change the atoms in a sample of material. I would be glad to participate in such experiments. I believe the results will be even more unpredictable than we could ever imagine. Consider, for example, that for any rock or bone or other remnant of a living organism, the impact on its atoms by a stroke of lightning might be influenced by the level of moisture, by minerals in the vicinity, and by the "closeness" of the lightning charge.
There is one more major piece of evidence, usually interpreted by physicists as supporting the expanding universe theory. That is the detection of so-called "background radiation." Radio telescopes pick up a faint very long wavelength of radiation in virtually all directions, from deep in space, from the far reaches of the "visible" universe. The current explanation offered is that it is the residual "heat" left over from the original explosion which was the Big-Bang origin of the universe. For me, this explanation is tenuous, and the evidence is subject to equally reasonable alternative interpretations. First, for example, astrophysicists refer to the "visible" universe or the "known" universe. Clearly, we have reason to believe that the universe could be much bigger than what we are now able to "see" with our best technological means to observe. This has always been the case historically. Just as a child's world grows in size as the child matures, our universe has grown from a single world surrounded by a few "celestial spheres" to a universe many billions of light years in "diameter." We cannot say there is nothing beyond what we see. Therefore, whatever is beyond what we see could be the source of the "background radiation." Another reasonable explanation would be perfectly consistent with my theory of electromagnetic radiation. If the universe is very old, and electromagnetic radiation loses energy over cosmic distances (and over cosmic periods of time), then the background radiation could be nothing more than "spent light," meaning it is electromagnetic energy emitted so long ago, that it is just a shadow of its former self. If electromagnetic beams do lose energy over cosmic distances, they might not lose energy uniformly, but the loss of energy might proceed by a pattern of acceleration. Then, the lose of energy would proceed more rapidly for "old light" than for "new light." Since gravity is a force described as a form of "acceleration," then possibly light is a force subject to "deceleration." In any case, background radiation could have a source other than the big firecracker of an astrophysicist's celebration.
There is a quality in the Big-Bang expanding universe theory which I find intriguing and comical in a sophisticated way. Clearly, our view of the universe has expanded through history. The most recent expansions over the past four centuries have occurred due in part to technology which improved optical telescopes and produced the radiotelescopes, and then the propulsion technology which enables us to place telescopic devices outside our atmosphere. Therefore, we are able to "see" a larger portion of the universe. If the universe is infinite, then, or at least much larger than what we can "see," that means our view of the universe will continue to "expand" as our technology progresses. Which is practically the same thing as saying that "the universe is expanding." The explosive or expanding universe theory could therefore represent anthropomorphism at its best, or worst, being a subconscious simplicity which motivates human astrophysicists to describe the universe as it has appeared over history, which is: "expanding." Stated more directly: The expanding universe theory is an anthropomorphic statement that humans make because those humans have experienced, psychologically, the expansion of the "known" universe; therefore, as usual, those humans describe the universe as being a reflection of human experience. Stated one step more concisely: The real physical universe must be like our abstract knowledge of it: expanding.
We have good reason to doubt anything that physicists state about the subatomic world. Such "science" is so tenuous it falls within the realm of belief or faith. This is so because the student of the atom, us, is so astoundingly larger than the matter being studied. If we were atoms, and there were a giant human studying us, that giant student would possess a height of more than two million miles. His or her eyeball would be more than fourteen thousand miles in diameter. Twice the diameter of the Earth is nearly sixteen thousand miles. That student, with an eyeball nearly twice the size of the earth, would be looking at us through some device which it had manufactured, in order to "see" the shapes of our bodies and the relationships of the various parts.
The purpose of this chapter was to show that there are other reasonable ways to interpret the scientific evidence which supports the "theological" theories and statements of twentieth-century physics. I would include in a listing of such statements the following: that electromagnetic radiation behaves like matter and also like a wave of energy, while also stating that matter and energy are the same thing; that the universe is expanding and originated with a cosmic explosion; that radioactive dating is acceptably accurate; that the "background radiation" detected in space could only be a result of the explosive origin of the universe; that light, contrary to consistency in the laws of physics and unlike any other form of matter or energy, does not lose energy while it travels through space and therefore a "red-shift" is evidence that a light source is receding.
It is wrong for scientists to defend such beliefs on the grounds that because experiments were performed and interpreted by "experts," the conclusions are somehow more reliable than the beliefs of other people in other walks of life. The truth comes to us from everywhere. Any event or occurrence can be taken as evidence, and can be misinterpreted by anyone, including a scientist. A creation story does not automatically qualify as "good science" because it was developed by scientists, and being a creation story, it belongs also to theologians, who can examine the theory and relevant evidence claimed to support it, and bring out contrary evidence, similar to the way in which a lawyer in a court of law tests the credibility of a witness. I believe, and millions of persons like myself throughout the world, believe that there are superior beings in the universe, even though "scientists" say we cannot be sure until we meet them. We need to give serious consideration to the possibility that we have met with them already but are in denial to avoid the psychological pain of revising our entire history. This extremely important matter needs to be discussed in church. If the kingdom of heaven is the "federation of life in the universe," then we might simply be terrified to consider our true status in it: beginners with very little power, very little knowledge, and a lot of obligations. In any case, this chapter serves to help convey the central theme of this book, which is that for me religion is reality. The scientific validity or error of my theories is not the primary point. The primary point I have tried to drive home is that science is not separate from theology for a person who takes either seriously. The facts about the real physical universe are theology also, not only science. If "the church" would like me and millions of citizens like me to reconsider active church membership, you must re-claim the proper realm of theology, which includes cosmology. To prevent the church from becoming more stale, more irrelevant, an obsolete institution fading into the status of an historical museum, then theologians must re-claim the whole range of subject matter which falls within the scope of theology: Who are we? What are we? Where are we going? I want to talk about the reality in religion, in the whole universe, not just in a "heart" or a "mind." For me, the definition of religion is: A civilization's best effort to use all knowledge available to them to formulate answers to the cosmological questions. Questions about how we perceive reality and learn, claimed by the field of psychology, belong to theology. The questions as to whether there are superior beings in the universe, and a supreme being or supreme memory or supreme intelligence, belong to theology. The question "Is there a battle between good and evil?" also subtly claimed by psychology when it is applied for purposes of social control and the human response to crime, needs to be re-claimed by theologians. The meaning of justice, what is good behavior, and most of all, whether religion has to do with only what goes on inside the individual consciousness, or whether it also involves the external reality of the whole universe, needs to be discussed in church. These matters need to be discussed with reference to scientific information, but also with reference to any and all sources of information we have, including the teachings of Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Lao Tzu, Confucius, the Torah, the Celts and many others. In the chapters ahead, I will continue to take my stand on all of these issues, here in this book, because I know of no church where these matters are discussed.
The absurd "velocity of light in a vacuum"
Consider a foundation stone of twentieth-century physics, the physicist's "constant" designated as "the velocity of light in a vacuum." The velocity of light in a vacuum is actually an impossible event unless light is defined as a moving particle, and then it is still impossible because if particles of matter are present, the "vacuum" is not a perfect vacuum. The light would then be physical matter moving through nothing. What then is the effect of something on nothing? Does the nothing get hotter? Bigger? Does it change color?
If light is designated as energy, specifically waveform energy, then we are saying that waves of energy are traveling through nothing. How can that be? How could we possibly measure waves traveling through nothing? Waves are, by definition, measurable, regular changes, or pulses, or vibrations which manifest themselves or express themselves in some form of detectable matter. A wave or vibration is virtually always described or defined as an event which is detectable in some form of matter, that is, the waves appear in some detectable way in or through the physical matter. If we have "waves" traveling through nothing, and there is therefore no detectable event that occurs in physical matter, how do we know that the "wave" has passed through, or is passing through? Stated differently, if we are positively not measuring a change in some form of detectable matter, then we are placed in the position of measuring pulses, vibrations, or wave motion which is occurring in nothing. This cannot be done. Even if we claim to be measuring electrical charges. An electrical charge has to occur on something, unless we are asserting, by powerful and inescapable implication, that there exists a thing that is energy and which is distinctly different and separate from matter. We still have not ever devised a means to detect energy without direct or indirect reference to a particle of matter. That is a fact which cannot be repeated enough. It is the pitfall of twentieth-century physics.
Consider again our light energy traveling through a vacuum. What is a vacuum? Most likely the reader will think of a special and difficult "empty space" which is created by pumping out all of the air. Or, the reader will think of deep space as a "vacuum." Both of these represent a kind of vacuum. But, in reality, there are vacuums around us everywhere, and they are all the same in principle, but different in the character of their nuclear occupants. Think of several different forms of pure, continuous matter, solid, liquid or gaseous: iron, sulfur, steel, glass, wood, nitrogen, air, hydrogen, limestone. Think of some of your own. By definition, every substance that can be named, if represented by a "block" of matter or a piece of matter through which electromagnetic radiation could pass, represents in fact electromagnetic radiation traveling through a vacuum. This is true because all concentrations of elemental or molecular matter, even the most dense and hardest solids, are made of atoms and molecules linked together by bonds which may be geometric or "chemical" or electronic bonds. What is between the molecules? What is between the atoms which make up the molecules? What is between the nuclei of the atoms and the layers of electrons? The correct answer, according to every physics book ever written, is "nothing," a vacuum. It must be the same vacuum as we expect to exist in our "evacuated" container, or in deep space. Actually, it could be argued that the vacuum between nucleus and electron, or between atom and atom, is in fact the most perfect of all vacuums, more empty than any larger vacuum that could be found or created. What this means, then, is that radiation traveling through any solid, liquid or gaseous matter is actually traveling through a vacuum which happens to be occupied by an interlocking mesh, sometimes very orderly, symmetrical or "crystalline," structure of molecules. Now we can begin to see the interesting results that we obtain when we first think of electromagnetic radiation as waveform energy, and then think of it as a traveling particle of matter, especially if we think of it as a photon traveling in a spiral path. If the radiation is pure energy (which is totally undefined by physicists), which manifests itself in the form of a wave, then, we can detect the "waves" by means of their impact on the atoms of matter. But look! If the radiation is particles traveling in spiral paths, we will get the same or a very similar result. The impact (upon the regular molecular structure of our material) of the particles on their spiral path will show up, with the use of any simple means of detection, as a "wave" of electronic effects. Therefore, my argument is that if radiation is a particle traveling in a spiral path, and it is "measured" by any simple means of detection, it will yield evidence of a "wave" form of "energy" while other devices of detection will yield evidence of a photon particle. Further, if we are looking for radiation traveling through a vacuum, we are in fact surrounded by it all the time. Because some forms of radiation can penetrate even metals, concrete, or the entire planet, we are therefore surrounded by radiation which is traveling through all sorts of vacuums, vacuums which are each characterized by the particular atomic and molecular structure of particulate matter which happened to occupy that particular vacuum before the radiation which was passing through had arrived. It is like a stranger passing through a small town: all of the permanent residents notices the stranger, but none of them changes much for the passing. YET STILL, there may be some small change, in one of the permanent residents. AND, if large numbers of such strangers come through, and some stop for a time, and some are joined to one of the permanent resident household molecules, then the town (or the substance) is considerably changed, until it becomes a different town, or a different substance. This is in fact the way radiation affects matter, consistent with the body of experimental evidence. This is why I am convinced that electromagnetic radiation is a particle traveling in a spiral path, and, if the particle is driven by some form of energy, we do not in fact have any idea what that energy is. It is as primal and mysterious as the existence of reality itself. In order to begin to know what energy is, we must lay the foundation for an entirely new science. We must seek certainty, as soon as possible, as to whether there is energy separate and distinct from matter, or not. It is not sufficient to state cryptically that matter and energy are different forms of the same "thing" or E = mc2 and all that garbage. Physicists must acknowledge, if they are to be reasonably honest, that if energy and matter are truly the same thing, then human science is infantile and we are as morons compared to any species which understands why this one "thing" appears in two profoundly different forms. The fact that human physicists speak proudly of "light traveling through a vacuum" is good evidence that as scientists, humans have reached the imbecile level of development. I do not claim to know what energy is, and no one should place their trust in a "physicist" who claims to know what energy is but cannot explain it because it is "too difficult" for a nonexpert to understand. Neither should anyone trust any scientist who presents as fact such fantasies as "wormholes" or a fold or a tear in the "fabric of time."
The dogmatic church of science
Appearing in The Boston Globe Magazine, Sunday August 9, 1998, an article by John Yemma entitled "Seeing Einstein in a new light," (pp. 6 - 7) illustrated the current authoritarian grip the beliefs of scientists impose on our society. Mr. Yemma tells us that a professor of mathematics (who is sufficiently rebellious to be a mathematician in a female body), Domina Eberle Spencer, has developed a mathematical theory which, if correct, proves Einstein was wrong about the velocity of light and time. Professor Spencer calls her intellectual product "the universal time postulate." She argues that the speed of light is not constant, and that it can travel either slower or faster than 186,000 miles per second, and all events in the universe occur in "universal time." Mr. Yemma points out that if Professor Spencer is right, then Einstein was wrong about time. How is this challenge to the Einsteinian view of the physical reality received in the scientists' church? Not interested. The American Association for the Advancement of Science is not interested. A physicist who gets to play with the Fermi National [Particle] Accelerator in Illinois, Leon Lederman, said that "Einstein is in no danger of being dethroned." So, we thought Einstein was a theoretical scientist, but now he has become a king whose word is law. What world is this? Is this the twentieth century democracy, or the fifteenth century? Physicists are often contemptuous of the social scientists. They do not believe that the science of psychology has anything useful to teach them. The science of psychology, together with history, sociology and religion, tells us that the physicists are doing the same thing to our society as medieval bishops did to their society: describing their personal beliefs and presenting them to society as facts which cannot be questioned. They hold up the sacred shield of "scientific method" as their defense, refusing to consider the argument that the "scientific method" is the human method. The results of an experiment, the same as any other phenomena observed, are subject to human interpretation. There is no sound basis to argue that the Bible is subject to interpretation but the results of an experiment, or mathematical invention, are not. We wonder, do we not, how and why the people of the past put up with religious and intellectual oppression. The answer to that question, again coming from the field of psychology, is the same for the past as it is for the present: people tolerate oppression because they do not know, or are unable to admit, that they are being oppressed. Physicist, know thyself.
Think of my four major theories as legs on a table: 1) Time is a fiction of consciousness; 2) Light is a particle traveling on a spiral path; 3) Light loses energy and decreases wavelength over cosmic distances; 4) Radiological and atomic dating are not reliable because they do not consider particle losses attributable to lightning and other electrical phenomena. If one leg is proven true, the table of the physicists' cosmology will be shaken. If two or more are proven true, the table will tip and fall. If all four are proven true, the people's trust in science will be justifiably broken.
In September, 1998, when I was finishing the writing of Religion as Reality, I noticed that there were a number of books in the field (the reconciliation of or integration of religion and science) recently published. Four examples are:
Raymo, Chet. Skeptics and True Believers. New York: Walker and Company, 1998.
Schroeder, Gerald. The Science of God. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997.
Watts, Alan. UFO Visitation: preparing for the twenty-first century. London: Blandford, 1996.
Wilber, Ken. The Marriage of Sense and Soul. New York: Random House, 1998.
Clearly, the subject matter is of great interest to the general public, because the strain between scientific (technological) descriptions of the universe and the traditional religious descriptions (angels, Santa Claus, another world in heaven and rewards in heaven) have become too great to bear. The viewpoint that this is a black and white battle, where one side will win absolutely, and the other will lose absolutely, is both terrifying and irrational. Religious people should not be accused of misunderstanding reality any more than scientists, who know that all the scientists of the past have misunderstood reality. The argument that people of the past said what they believed and cannot help having misunderstood what they heard and saw, is the most rational interpretation of history and traditional religion.
Of the four authors listed above, I feel that Watts made the best effort to explain the possibilities of the real physical universe which could cause UFOs to be invisible to us. The aliens may have a relatively complete understanding of the relationship between gravity and magnetism, which we do not have and we know we do not have. The magnetic fields around their craft, as well as the aliens' possible capacity to radiate energy from their own bodies, is a most likely explanation for the electrical and hypnotic effects of their presence near humans. Sometimes we see them, sometimes we don't. Sometimes humans are mesmerized by seeing them, and sometimes humans are really mesmerized (according to abduction stories) when the aliens look at them. Watts discusses the theories of Einstein and how they predict the behavior of light energy and matter. Watts also addresses the work of Paul Dirac, a mathematician who developed theories which confirm Einstein's theories in many ways but also go beyond Einstein to explain phenomenon which Einstein did not. In Chapter Six of UFO Visitation, Watts presents a discussion of what is a "vacuum." This is of course an excellent question, for which our science does not provide an adequate answer. Dirac may have gotten us on the right track. According to Watts, Dirac's theories support the viewpoint that there is both matter and antimatter in the universe. Many physicists agree, but most feel there is insufficient evidence to support the idea that antimatter exists in great quantities or for more than a fraction of a second, because when antimatter meets matter, they annihilate one another and release that most elusive of things: "pure energy." However, Dirac's work proposes the possibility that the "space" between the stars and planets is not empty, but rather is filled with electrons and positrons which exist in a kind of balance. (In this model, electrons are negatively charged matter; positrons are positively charged antimatter.) They do annihilate one another often, releasing energy, but they generally coexist continually and fill the so-called "vacuum" of space. Therefore, in this model, space is not space at all; it is comprised of a form of material and energy which we do not detect, either with our eyes or with our instruments. I suggest the reader get their hands on Watts book if they seek a more detailed explanation. At first it seems that Watts' arguments are at profound odds with mine here. Watts defends Einstein's theories, the conventional wisdom of modern physics. I question Einstein's theories and propose alternatives. Watts says, on p. 70, "Whatever you may learn to the contrary, the small packets of light that we call photons are not particles." I have argued here that light is a photon particle moved by a form of energy. If light is purely waveform energy, then our seeing of light waves is perfectly analogous to our hearing of sound waves. If that is the true description of reality, we still have to determine what waveform energy is. We have to consider the possibility that we live in a universe of matter only, and that energy is our mental fiction to indicate that action or an event involving matter has taken place. Einstein and Dirac might be on the right track, but incomplete in their description of physical reality to the point that we become confused, and perhaps awed by how we can know so much but still have a complete and satisfactory explanation of gravity and magnetism out of our reach. Look again at what Dirac's view proposes: that what we call "space" is not really a vacuum. It is composed of a form or matter--and or energy--which we do not see. That model would confirm one of my core themes about religion as reality. The All Seeing Eye of God on the Egyptian pyramid tells us the most important truth we need to know: that what we believe (our religion) will be determined by what we see (our "knowledge" about physical reality). The Eye of Ra sees even the smallest of things, but our eyes are not divine. Our brainsight is limited, and we do not see the smallest of things, the mustard seeds of reality which determine the causes and effects of the real physical universe. Perhaps it will soon be proven that throughout our history, when we looked up at the sky, we have been seeing "space" where there is not emptiness, but the fullness of the material setting in which all things occur. Jesus spoke about seeing and believing. He said, "Blessed are they who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20: 29). That seems strange to us in its traditional context. Why should any rational person believe what is not supported by concrete evidence? Well, here is your answer, because there is a lot of reality which we do not see. Superior beings can tell us about it, but it is a thankless job. It is extremely difficult for very intelligent beings to explain things to woodenheads like us, who do not see half of the reality around us, or perhaps even less. When we believe the teachings of Jesus, or another religious prophet, we are described by others as "having faith," and that means believing what we do not see. At least, we do not see our objects of faith with our eyes, but we do see them in our minds. For some reason, the religious teaching makes sense to us, seems rational rather than irrational. Therefore, these observations by Watts--and Paul Dirac--are consistent with my argument that we will not improve our understanding of the physical universe simply by continuing the model of the intelligent observer observing the objective universe. We must thoroughly reexamine the calculating learning observer. It is only by knowing ourselves in the smallest detail that we might know the external universe. I would like to point out here also, that if "space" actually contains a mass of electrons and positrons, that phenomenon would most likely slow down the velocity of light over cosmic distances. We might not see the stars where they are at all. My challenge to conventional physics is not "off the wall." My theories are consistent with many of the observations of some of the great names in math and science, such as Einstein and Dirac. But, the doctrinaire church of science is no more tolerant of outside challengers than the Vatican City. It is of supreme importance that we learn more about what we do not perceive, because that actually appears to be the key to our learning what we do not know. How will we rate, on an intergalactic intelligence scale where we are compared with aliens, we who think that there is nothing but "space" between us and the stars?
Later in his book, Alan Watts discusses some of the information received in trance by certain channellers. I believe that all sources of information should be considered in our search for the truth. However, for me, the superior source of information is Jesus Christ, because he was a physical human being like us, who lived on Earth and experienced life on Earth as we do. He knew what it meant, what it felt like, the challenge and difficulties inherent in being a physical human being on Earth. He spoke to us in our own words. He acted out the lessons he had to teach, made his life and his many decisions--all of his human relationships--an example for us to see so that we have not only his words but his actual example. For me, Christ's message is clear and consistent throughout his life and teaching: good stewardship is the key to survival and success. In the real universe, taking care of business means taking care of life. This is the straight and narrow path, the narrow gate that is the way eternal. The goal of creating justice on Earth can be achieved only by a civilization whose laws and institutions base all human relationships and all human interactions on mutual love and mutual respect for one another and for all of life. It is life that evolves, and we cannot separate ourselves in any way from other life, either "beneath" us, above us, around us, or beyond us. The kingdom of heaven is life, and that is why Jesus said "The kingdom of heaven is at hand." He did not mean that the end of the world is near. He meant that we, you and me, we are the kingdom of life the same as any angels or visitors from heaven. The intelligent beings that live in space are not separate from us. All living beings exist on the same great tree which grew from the mustard seed, the tree of life. If you want to see an alien, look in a mirror, or at your neighbor. Your neighbor from the same town is not really more like you than your neighbor from another planet. That is what I believe Jesus meant when he said the kingdom of heaven is right here, before your very eyes. The human problem is our sense of separateness, our feeling that we are distinctly different from anything else that lives. Remember what the great philosophers advise: Be careful what you pray for; you may get what you want. If we insist on our separateness, we may in fact get what we want, and experience the ultimate separateness, the death that has no retraction. Possibly the reality of the universe, to be seen even in Jesus' teaching, has a knife edge: Either be life and a lover of life, or be gone forever. As Dante Alighieri observed on his trip to Hell, no "trimmers" (fence sitters) are allowed in the kingdom of heaven.
It's later than I thought
I read another book, The Marriage of Sense and Soul by Ken Wilber (1998), with great interest, because when I started reading the work it appeared to be scholarly and highly informative. Within a few pages, however, I began to read with great concentration because I was both captivated and terrified at what I was reading. Wilber is a great scholar. He is also a doer, a practitioner of meditation and contemplation, and what he calls in his book "spiritual science." He is a person knowledgeable in the academic disciplines of philosophy, the history of philosophy, the history of religion and comparative religion. Any reader will see that the author possesses great knowledge of human history and the human condition, and at least some knowledge about science and what it means. This is all apparent from his book. I have not met him personally. For me, what he has written is a long book (214 pages) which articulates and attempts to defend a concept that can be stated in a few sentences. That concept is not only amenable to concise expression. For me, it is also the most dangerous concept being taught in our society today: the concept that religion or "spirituality" is accomplished primarily through "contemplation," which means that spirituality is about the "inner life." Since Wilber rather clearly argues that spirituality achieved through meditation and or contemplation is the only form of religion that is "scientific" or worth knowing or doing, Wilber therefore argues that religion is essentially lived internally, or, religion is the inner life. I so despise that concept, it is not an exaggeration to say that my mission is to destroy it. I would argue vigorously that I am not mis-reading Wilber, not stretching, slanting or distorting the meaning of his words.
The core of Wilber's argument is this: If science would simply recognize that the field of spiritual discipline, or "spiritual science," which means a practice of meditation and contemplation, can be and is organized like any other scientific "field of knowledge," then science and religion will be integrated. For Wilber, spiritual science can be taught like any other subject matter. People can be trained in spirituality. The success or correctness of their training can be verified, or "falsified" by "a community of the adequate" (p. 204). Wilber has suggested the most oppressive form of "scientifically justified" religious tyranny and apparently does not know that is what his words convey. The logical form of his argument is virtually the same as the recent Soviet tyranny over Central Asia which was defended as "scientific socialism."
Nowhere does Wilber question or challenge a single scientific doctrine or a physicist's interpretation of the physical cosmos. He does not acknowledge the absolutely essential distinction between technology (active control) and pure science (passive knowing or understanding, correctly, accurately, how the universe works and what it is). He advocates that religious people abandon their traditional myths as bogus (pp. 165-166 and other pages) and accept contemplation or "deep science" and the spiritual experience of the interior as true religion. Nowhere does he even hint that a religious myth, such as the birth of Christ to a "virgin" woman, might actually have occurred and be consistent with the scientific truth. His concept of the "marriage" of science and religion is a form of academic authoritarian institutional business deal: I will approve of you scientists making your living selling empirical physical science, if you will publicly approve of us spiritual trainers making our living selling the science of spirituality as the only true religion--the highest domain of knowing, the path for individuals (if approved by a community of the adequate) to liberate themselves from the sorrows of the exterior world, which Wilber describes as (p. 213) "...the chains of space and time, self and suffering, hope and fear, death and wonder."
Wilber advocates what I consider primitive romanticism: the idea that science, and religion in the form of an academic field of spirituality/psychology, can validate one another. If they do validate one another, Wilber calls that the integration of science and religion. I call that the consolidation of the authoritarian scientocracy--the worst, most oppressive tyranny possible. Spirituality will then be available to those who have the tuition money, or a scholarship, and who are acceptable to "a community of the adequate." If you are not accepted, or "certified" or "graduated" by a community of the adequate, it follows logically that you are not truly spiritual, or you are inadequate, or "less adequate." Wilber belongs to a movement that is prepared to do what was done in Orwell's 1984 much more effectively than Orwell imagined. They will control the religious authority first, and the political authority will follow. This, if one views history with a sharp eye, is the usual pattern of tyranny. A dictatorship or aristocracy is always more entrenched, more effective, and harder to correct, if they exercise spiritual authority and political power. If they exercise political power without spiritual authority, they must get the cooperation of the spiritual, or "religious" institutions, or risk losing their legitimacy. If you lived in such a society, and did not conform with the politically correct description of spirituality, you would then be "less adequate." Being less adequate would lock you firmly in the category of "labor," while the "adequate" would be in the category of "management." Wilber's book is a wordy defense, filled with academic jargon, of the most despicable concept promoted by the worst form of fundamentalism: the concept of "salvation by membership." That means: "Join us and be saved." The unspoken second half of that evangelistic warning is: "If you do not join us you are risking substantial losses."
For me, the reconciliation of science and religion occurs like this: The freight train of the one whole reality slams into both science and religion and turns them both to bug paste. Then the people, who would like to know reality and continue living with it, scrape themselves off the front of the train and begin correcting the errors in past interpretations of religious history and religious teaching, and, begin correcting the errors in the past interpretations of scientific physical descriptions of the universe. When both are fully corrected, they are not only compatible, they become one description of one reality. There are no separate "realms," or "dimensions," or "domains." There may still be different ways of knowing, different ways of describing, depicting, or representing reality, but these different modes of communication and expression are not taken to mean there are separate realities. There is one reality. For me, all the observers of the freight train of reality are on the track. Wilber writes as though different observers of reality are standing beside the track and observing the train go by. One person detects the train by seeing it, another by hearing it, another by feeling the vibrations in the ground, and a fourth by feeling only the gust of air that brushes across the skin as the train goes by. Wilber's words imply that because each of these persons observes reality by a different method--and therefore practices a different way of knowing--the results represents different "domains" or different "levels" of reality. Those who are in the habit of seeing the train are not accepting of the argument from the fourth person, that the train is a particular form of a gust of wind. Those who see the train tell the person who feels the air currents created by the train that they are not seeing reality. The person who feels the gust of wind is telling those who see the train that their seeing is not really superior to the feeling of air movements. In fact, the feeling of air movements requires a more refined sensitivity, and a greater challenge to the human consciousness to distinguish reality from imagination. Those who detect the world by air currents felt on the skin are therefore more sensitive, just as scientific, and more aware of the reality of the world than those who only record what they see but not the subtle wisps of moving air. This is my metaphor, not Wilber's. I offer it as a metaphor for Wilber's request that the scientists--those who see reality--to validate Wilber's "spiritual science"--the perceptions of those who detect reality by a different, more subtle, means. For me, all methods of detecting reality are valid, but all of the results from all of the methods must be reconciled. Separate realities are not allowed.
The metaphor of the freight train being observed by observers standing beside the track is similar to the ancient metaphor of the several blind men feeling different parts of an elephant. One feels the tail, and says an elephant is like a rope. Another feels the trunk and says the elephant is like a snake. Another feels the side and says an elephant is like a wall, and so on. The lesson of this fable actually has two parts. Everyone gets the first part, which is: If you examine only part of a reality, you will not know the whole reality. You are at risk to believe that the part you examined is the whole thing. There is a second part, which means, in Zen fashion: Be aware that reality is like an elephant; it is very large. One person cannot examine it briefly, by one method, and take it all in. To understand the whole reality, you need to try every method, listen to the results obtained by every other type of person and type of method. Do not eliminate or invalidate any source of experience. Consider every source of experience, interpretation, and description. Wilber has been feeling the rope of contemplation for a long time, and in his book, whether he knows it or not, he is implying that contemplation is the only part of religion that has scientific validity. Contemplation is the only part of religion that should be retained, or, the only part of religion that will survive in a scientific society. I disagree with that violently. It is the most advanced argument of the "missionaries from inner space," which I discuss further in Chapter Fourteen.
It appears to me that for Wilber, the integration of science and religion is some kind of social protocol or treaty among faculty at a university. For me, the integration of science and religion is not something that can be accomplished by only a segment of society, and is not an optional cultural preference. Civilizations of any size, including planetary, which separate reality into two realities: one scientific and one spiritual; one moral and one practical, do so because they are chronically ignorant, and if they are intractably ignorant and refuse to let go of this cosmological schizophrenia, they will perish by either self-destruction or by an irresponsible lack of preparation for that one reality which they refuse to accept and examine. The separation of truth into two realities is a human character defect which cannot yield good results.
To reassure the reader I am responding to Wilber's written words, let me quote a few lines. On page 35 he quotes Huston Smith: "Reality is graded, and with it cognition." followed by Wilber's own words "... there are levels of both being and knowing." On page 36 he argues that "new paradigms" are only mental ideas, and all such mental ideas cannot help us integrate science and religion because "... they are not transmental contemplation disclosing the Divine." Wilber is accustomed to transcending virtually everything, and his book invites the reader on a roller coaster ride trans-ing all the way. At times I felt that the author might be a transcendental transpersonal person who advocates the transformation of transpsychological transcontemplation. He does actually write on page 36 that "... the eye of contemplation is translogical." In his "Part III: A Reconciliation" he begins with "[Chapter] 10: The Within: A View of the Deep." A section of Chapter 10 is sub-titled "The Resurrection of the Interior." Wilber writes on p. 167: "Religion in the modern and postmodern world will rest on its unique strength--namely, contemplation." On page 174: "With the eye of contemplation, God can be seen. With the eye of contemplation, the great Within radiantly unfolds." With the voyagers of the Starship Enterprise we were invited to go into outer space where no man [or person] had gone before. With Captain Wilber, we are invited to go to the "great Within." Ken Wilber the person may actually have an expansive heart and an expansive, loving soul, but the words of his book tell us that religion is only about what is inside, not what is outside. His words are at risk to be used to increase the separation between the two realities of science and religion.
I would like to close this chapter with one more opinion regarding twentieth century science (a), a commentary on the definition of "religion" (b), and then an original and rather amazing possibility about how the living universe works for us here on Earth with regard to missionaries from outer space and missionaries from inner space (c).
A. Wilber argues from the premise that there are two realities which can be reconciled. Medeiros (that's me) argues that there is one reality, and the human institutions of science and religion each interpret their separate realities in accordance with the same pattern of human behavior. That is, they each create hierarchical organizations, doctrines and heroes, which are defended as a part of the ongoing task of defending the legitimacy of the institution. I have had many teachers in my life, but the one that taught what might be the most important truth for anyone who is interested in science and religion, or politics and religion, was taught to me by Professor Guenter Lewy. He said, to me and my classmates, to paraphrase: "Whatever the Roman Catholic Church did, or did not do, before and during World War II, was nothing more nor less than what all institutions do, which is: defend their own institutional interests." That may seem at first like some more or less cold precept of political science. However, take another look at the most eloquent version of that same precept, which is given to us as words directly from the lips of Jesus Christ in Matthew 23: the religious authorities protect their own institutional interests, not the truth, and not the people. They serve themselves, not Justice. My position is that scientific institutions follow the same pattern of human behavior as religious institutions. The argument that scientific institutions use the scientific method does not in itself give them more reliable access to the truth of their own physical reality. Scientists design their experiments for the purpose of affirming doctrines or defending them from discrediting attacks. Billions of dollars on particle accelerators are not being spent in search of scientific truth. These enormously expensive experimental apparatuses are by definition tools which embody--and are designed to confirm--current scientific interpretations of physical reality. Within fifty years a particle accelerator will be a curiosity, a monstrous antique with no scientific value whatsoever except to confirm that twentieth century physics was all wrong, and that human beings can pour the energy and wealth of an entire civilization into a misunderstanding.
B. In the Foreword I stated my definition of religion, to paraphrase: religion is the formulation of all human knowledge, from all possible sources, into one consistent description of one reality. I will add that another very important part of the definition of religion is this: if you own nothing else, you own your beliefs. Your true voluntary beliefs are untouchably yours. If everything else was taken from you: your home, your family, your property, your place in society, your power to walk and speak, down to the bone, no one could take or steal your beliefs about reality from you. What you say or do to be polite is not your religion, but only a small part of your way of living in a hostile world. For most people religion is very personal. It is personal. Even the slightly educated know that the history of the world is a long trail of blood and tears fallen from those who made their religion public. People can get hurt for their beliefs, if not killed, dismissed or shunned, beaten or robbed. No one should be blamed for protecting the privacy of their beliefs. The cautious live longer. No matter how good or bad fortune has treated you, the ownership of your spirit is at the core of the definition of religion. It is a core we often forget. We talk and write about religion sometimes, but we usually keep our true religion to ourselves, because the world is still a long way from the ideal of religious freedom. The United States of America, which sees itself as the sanctuary of democracy, is under attack from an enemy within, who cries out that America is a Christian nation that needs Christian laws. These adversaries of real freedom do not even understand that they are the adversaries of Jesus, who has no use for beliefs grown out of fear and conformity. Your faith, my faith, anyone's true religion, is only what you freely choose to believe, and not any of what is forced upon you, regardless of whether it is forced upon you by a sword, a promise, or a smile.
C. Jesus said, in Matthew 16: 19 "...whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The Roman Catholic Church interprets this passage as a "grant of authority" directly from God and Jesus to Catholic priests to forgive sins. That is, to me, the usual pattern of an institution selfishly serving its institutional interests. A careful reading of the New Testament will show that Jesus believed and taught that one ordinary human being can forgive another, so there is no need for any special grant of authority. What that passage means to me, is this: Whatever laws you human beings make for yourselves, for your justice and for your relationships on Earth, the kingdom of heaven will honor. The kingdom of heaven will not "correct" or make our laws for us. We live here on Earth, the laws on Earth are to be made and enforced by those who live on Earth. The kingdom of heaven then, if my understanding is correct, practices respect for the governed to govern themselves, and will not discredit or destroy our efforts to create justice in our own home territory, which is Earth. This is obviously similar to the "non-interference" principle of any "federation" or other intergalactic authority found in science fiction. If it is true, as I believe, that superior beings have visited the Earth and they are members of the same kingdom of heaven that sent us Jesus, then that passage from Matthew means that they will honor our Constitution and the First Amendment to our Constitution, which protects the right of every individual to choose and express their own beliefs. If that is correct, then we are wise to ask if our own people here on Earth will honor the First Amendment with the same integrity as the kingdom of heaven. Possibly superior beings are bound by the laws of the kingdom of heaven to not tyrannize us, to not tell us what to believe or instill fear or use force to change our beliefs. But what about the spirituality police here on Earth? What about the psychologists, the psychiatrists, the transcendental transpersonal transcommercial spiritual scientists and religious terrorists who want us to stop believing what we do believe and believe what they tell us to believe? Will they honor the First Amendment to the Constitution? How can we be sure? Will they do what has been done so many times before, make a deal with the government? Will they build a coalition between the spiritual police and those obsessed with political power? Would they close such a deal by calling it the "integration of science and religion." How is the First Amendment enforced? What can each of us do to secure the blessings of religious freedom for ourselves? The answer has always been the same: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Desire for your neighbor the same good things that you desire for yourself. If you want to secure your religious freedom, all you have to do is guarantee the same free choice to your neighbors, including those neighbors whose beliefs are different from your own. The First Amendment and the teachings of Jesus are both laws in the one kingdom of heaven: mutual respect is the foundation of true freedom and true religion.
End Chapter Seven
See [The Spiral Path Theory Illustrated], 6 pages.
Link to: (Welcome) or (Geometry Alpha Index) or if reading Pitfalls of a Technological Animal, link back to (Good Steward vs the Voramon)