Humanity Thrive!

Dedication: to Yui and Arthur. Preface: Socrates was, still is, and always will be my mentor. He was forced to kill himself by drinking an arsenic potion because he taught his students to question authority. But he taught them more than this: he taught them to question everything. Much of science was developed with induction: the derivation of general rules from examples. Deduction, however, is the method of deriving conclusions from a set of suppositions using logical rules. This is the standard technique in mathematics. There's also proof by contradiction which some “math purists” will not accept. It's also standard in math. Godel developed his supremely important Incompleteness Theorem using ___ (please research and fill in the blank yourself). Typically, a deduction is arrived at by working backwards. It's a technique seldom taught in schools – just as math is seldom taught with inspiration. The motivation for a proof is the inspiration for a particular method – such as when to use the epsilon-delta approach in advanced calculus. If there's only one thing you get from this book, I hope it's this: cherish your education; what you truly learn is more important than any grade. Some educators think there's an “expiration date” on your education; never think this. It's a demoralizing and useless thought. That idea was created out of fear – the fear of lack of students to keep the business of universities going. But there's no need to “give in” to this fear; there will always be students in a society that values education. True education is the imparting of enduring principles and ideas such as the Socratic method – the Socratic method will never die because there will always be a need for it – just as there will always be a need for induction, deduction, and the systems approach. And yes, the systems approach is just as important as induction, deduction, and the Socratic method. 1

Contents: p03, 1. The Four Perspectives of the Systems-Reliability Approach p08, 2. Subdivide Versus Holistic p11, 3. What Goes Around Comes Around p14, 4. The Ends Cannot Justify the Means p16, 5. Distributed Versus Centralized Infrastructure p18, 6. Explicit Tolerance p22, 7. The Purpose of Education p26, 8. Three Technologies That Can Save the World p30, 9. Two Types of Companies p32, 10. The Two Fundamental Values of Civilization p36, 11. Example Design: A Human Supporting Ecosystem p38, 12. Are We Alone? p53, 13. GP@home p59, 14. Physics p67, 15. Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome p69, 16. The Importance of Love and Family p70, 17. The Discipline of Prayer p73, 18. Three Distributed Computing Projects p75, 19. The Year 2012 p78, 20. Holistic Gardening p80, 21. The Holistic Home p83, 22. Utopia-Town p86, Addendum 1: Old Chapter on Physics p91, Addendum 2: A Second Paper on Physics p96, Addendum 3: A Third Paper on Physics

2

1. The Four Perspectives of the Systems-Reliability Approach Boundary What's inside the system, what's outside the system, and what're the major components of the system? In answering these questions, we address the system notion of boundary. Let’s examine the human system. What's inside the human system? Human beings, social organization (formal and informal), and our infrastructure – are major sub-systems. What are inputs? Those are energy, resources, ecologies that impact our lives, and natural (non-living) systems that impact our lives. What things “flow” between major sub-systems? Those things are: resources, energy, information, feelings (can be thought of as commodities that are exchanged), “control signals”, and disinformation. What are outputs of the human system? Those are wastes, heat, information, culture (both constructive and destructive aspects), and things that affect non-living systems and ecologies. Aside: what's war in systems terms? War is the allocation of resources, energy, information, feelings (such as aggression), control signals, and disinformation – all directed at one goal: domination. The “rational” idea behind war (as hoped by governments waging war) is that long-term gains should outweigh any short-term malady. Please refer to the chapter below entitled: The Ends Cannot Justify the Means. So, the system notion of boundary is the view that identifies the system concerned: what is inside and out, what are major components, what flows between, and what flows in and out.

3

Scope There are three major aspects of the system notion of scope: feasibility, customer requirements, and design responsibilities. Tied together in question form: can you design a workable system that satisfies customer and design requirements within budget? As applied to the human system: can we re-design a workable human system (as defined above) that satisfies humanity and our design constraints within our allocated budget (assume for the moment we have a design budget and authority to re-allocate system resources to satisfy design requirements)? This is an extremely difficult question when dealing with complex systems. Frequently, the entire process of “system design”: identify boundary, scope, maintenance concerns, and reliability – must be repeated several times – “filling out” details of sub-systems and flows, inputs and outputs, re-answering the question associated with scope (with every major change in system design, there is an associated change in the question of scope), and the concerns below. Maintenance Expect to pay at least the same amount for maintenance – as for “the original system”. In this case, the “end users” are human beings themselves. If we can design and implement a human system that satisfies (I would substitute the word fulfills here) the vast majority of human beings, if we can maximize quality-of-life while minimizing suffering, and at the same time – not create a welfare state, we would have accomplished something truly fundamental. Maintenance is the “upkeep” for the designed system – to satisfy end-user requirements. Frequently, the designed system does not take into account many of those (it’s too expensive and difficult to satisfy every end-user need) – and – it's difficult and sometimes impossible 4

to anticipate changes in end-user requirements. So, it’s a tradeoff: the more we spend on creating a “maintenance-free” product, the less we are likely to spend on maintenance – provided we have the foresight to anticipate the true needs of end-users. There's risk involved – which brings up the next topic. Reliability What is the risk/probability of failure of a major sub-system? What is the cost of that particular failure? Multiply the two and you get a simplistic projection of the relative cost. Let’s consider a “simple” example: a telecommunication switch (the device used to route local calls). The risk of total failure (where the switch “goes down” – it cannot route any new calls and all calls-in-progress are dropped) – is quite low: perhaps once in ten years. The cost of that failure can be quite high – depending on the local customer base and duration. Even considering averages, the cost can rise into the millions. So, let’s say the switch is down for three hours and costs the local telephone company two million in lost revenue and bad publicity. Just three hours in ten years. If you divide down-time by up-time (over ten years) then multiply by two million, you get around $70 which equates to about three hours of technician-time. So, we're justified if we allocate three technician-hours for switch maintenance (over ten years) to specifically avoid this kind of problem. Actually, telephone companies allocate much more than this to avoid total switch failure. Let’s move the discussion toward the human system. Catastrophic failure would be where every single human being would die. Admittedly, the probability of that is extremely low. Extremely low but non-zero. Some would say the cost of that event would be “infinity”. A number (no matter how low) times 5

infinity is still infinity. So, the relative cost is still “just too high”. So, anything we spend on preventing that event – is money well spent. A dynamical system is one in which past inputs affect present outputs or system state. Reliability usually refers to the domain of systems concerns – which reflect upon system stability. Stability refers to the behavior of system state over time. Is it restricted? Or does vary madly – threatening to destroy the system itself? (Reliability also refers to dependability or consistency of good system performance. If a car does not start, has repeated mechanical breakdowns, or exhibits uncontrollable vibrations while driving – we say it is unreliable.) ..In systems theory, much emphasis is put on controllability and observability – which are pretty much – exactly what they “say”: a system is controllable if there are finite inputs which “drive” (or push) system state to desired specifications – and – a system is observable if there is a set of measurable outputs which represent the state of the system. State variables are those which represent system structure. When we are designing a system “from scratch”, these are all known and explicit. When we are trying to understand a natural system “from the outside”, we have to make reasonable guesses about state, inputs, outputs, and attempt to determine if the system is observable and controllable.. In systems analysis, there are stable systems and there are unstable systems. A famous image of wind shear causing increasing oscillations, in this case twists, is recalled by many of the public. The flexible bridge here is “the system” and the constant wind shear – the input. The system under the force of 6

gravity (only) is stable. The system under gravity and wind shear – unstable. There are many analogous stresses/inputs on the human system. Hunger can be thought of – as a kind of stress. Overpopulation causes hunger which is a stress on the human system. Disease vectors cause stress on the human system. Changing weather patterns cause stress on the human system. Disruption of food supply chains causes stress on the human system. Lowering the quality of education causes stress on the human system. The point of this chapter is to introduce systems concepts, apply them cursorily to the human system, and provide a launching point for other ideas below.

7

2. Subdivide Versus Holistic It is typically Western to use reduction to solve problems: break a problem into parts, solve the parts, which solves the larger problem, right? Medical surgery is a good example: cut the problem out - “fix” it! Does it really solve the problem? Or merely treat one symptom of an underlying (typically unseen systemic) issue? For small isolated problems, reduction works brilliantly – look at the success of the West. Our civilization is the most brilliant in history. Truly, it is not so much a testament of capitalism as it is a testament of reduction. Our great engineering endeavors: dams, bridges, and other structures are examples of beauty in functionality (and apparent simplicity). These structures are both grand and elegant. But when they fail, it's because of a lack of full use of the systems approach – such as with the two Space Shuttle disasters. When they attempted to find the “root cause” of those failures, it was again – using reduction. They pieced together the (available) shuttle much like a forensic scientist would try to piece together a body or murder scene. And this technique worked – just barely. Why have there been so many delays with CERN - “the world's largest particle accelerator”? Precisely because they have been forced to use the systems approach to solve major/catastrophic problems before they emerge. So many nations have contributed money and time to the project – that a catastrophic failure would be “major sin”. Holism, the holistic approach, is fairly alien to Westerners. The systems approach is essentially holism and Westerners have 8

been applying it for about one century - but Easterners have been “doing” it for literally millennia. For instance, in Thai society, people see each other naturally as interdependent. It is the “natural way of things” as they see it. It is most emphatically not communism. It is a culturally based social interdependence. A favor is returned not out of guilt or (negative) obligation – but social balance, (positive) duty, and self-esteem. Parents take care of children and children take care of parents. It is why homelessness and patricide are relatively unheard of in Thailand. Of course, it is not paradise (or utopia) .. But, commitment to the extended family is stronger / more important there. Some things cannot be understood taken apart. Some things are destroyed by taking them apart. Sometimes, there is a synergy between elements that is destroyed by separating the elements. What is a human being? Is it merely an assembly of heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, brain, skin and other organs? If you “take a person apart” (disassemble a person), does that not destroy the person? Even if we could preserve each organ perfectly (and had some perfect method for reestablishing connective tissue), would anyone volunteer for such an ordeal? I doubt it. Most of us believe in “the soul” which could correspond to that synergy mentioned above. Another candidate could be “the mind”. Whatever it is, we believe there's something “extra” about our bodies that is greater than “the sum of the parts” – take one apart – and it disappears. But I am not one who mystifies or deifies the human being. I believe one day – we will fully understand the human being from a genetic and biochemical standpoint. Until then, we must use the systems approach – as an attempt to comprehend things – better than simple decomposition/reduction. 9

The two primary factors that determine whether you have to use the systems approach – or are allowed to use standard reduction – are complexity and subsystem interdependence. Computer science provides a measure of complexity – from the programming / software engineering standpoint. But we need something more general. And the level of subsystem interdependence can only be determined by a partial systems analysis. So complexity needs to be precisely defined and some preliminary systems analysis needs to be performed – in order to determine whether we can “get away” with standard reduction – or need to employ the systems-reliability approach. Complexity, for our purposes, is defined as the property of a system with the following features: a generous frequency of distinct types of components, a non-trivial arrangement of those components – in order for the system to function nominally, and some quantitative evidence of a system-wide synergy. I have made an argument for the case that the “human animal” is complex. It should be obvious that human society is also complex deserving of systems analysis. Anything less would be cheating us.

10

3. What Goes Around Comes Around There are two aspects of the Golden Rule; there are two sides of The Coin. Give what you want. Don't give what you don't want. That's as simple as it can be stated. But it's not detailed enough for true understanding. Treat others how you want to be treated. Don't treat them – how you don't want to be treated. This and the following chapter, for me, replace the ten commandments or any other morality structure. I don't “need” the ten commandments or Qu'ran. Those Two Rules are enough for me. Some people liken “what goes around comes around” to karma. I pray to God this universe is Just. I don't flatter myself with the label “good” but .. It would be a travesty if our universe were not just. If everything is relative, if there is no such thing as “good” or “bad”, then anything goes and there is no reason to “hold back” (just do what you want without regard to others). “My universe” (the model of our universe – in my mind) does not require a God – but it requires justice. Justice with a capital “J” means the archetype of justice – the ultimate justice. So there are (the concepts of) Truth, Respect, and Trust. My universe does not require the archetypes to be real – but it would be Nice if they were. ;) ..I've had several arguments with several friends (and family) about prime values and the existence of Truth. We cannot prove an objective reality exists “outside” our perceptions, but we can make compelling arguments. So we cannot prove the existence of Truth, but I think again – we can make compelling arguments. Philosophers throughout the ages have “wasted” a lot of time considering whether or not we even exist. It's almost like trying to explain why a transverse electromagnetic wave (a 11

photon) has oscillating electric and magnetic fields. Most people take it for granted. But some of us would like to understand. Are we figments in God's imagination? Can we ever know Truth? I think the power of our visualizations is tremendous. We can visualize many explanations of our observations of reality – much like many runs of a simulation. If we can train our intuition to mimic reality, we can “run through” these “simulations” - much like a supercomputer might. Our brains have incredible potential – for synthetic thought. Combine that with our power of visualization and you have a “device” which rivals (or in many cases outperforms) a supercomputer. I've had some successes at “imagining” (using the word in a special way to mean that discussed above) photons, elementary particles, and nuclear structure. I've run computer simulations of these imaginings and found some interesting parallels. No physicist would accept them as “proof”, so I've not tried to distribute them. But if I can have some successes at visualizing particle interactions, then there's no limit to applying visualization elsewhere. So I contend we can Know Truth if we relentlessly pursue it. If there is a God, surely It is infinite in many ways: perspective, understanding, and compassion. To look at something from “many angles” is an attempt to have a God-like perspective. Let's try it; it's a worthy goal.. One of my frequent prayers goes like this: Dear God, please protect and cherish the innocent. Please give me the power to protect the innocent in my life. One of the central questions of my young life was: does humanity deserve to survive? In the end, I think it is an open question – I think it is debatable. But for sure, I Know, the innocent of this world deserve protection, to survive, and to Thrive. I do not claim “virginal” (the kind you're born with) 12

innocence – that was destroyed in a horrific incident in my life – that I cannot talk about. But I write this book for the innocent of the world – please do not give up – please do not lose hope.

13

4. The Ends Cannot Justify the Means Is your wife's/girlfriend's life worth more than anything to you? Would you sacrifice the world for her? As a teenager, I was presented with these questions (by a fundamentalist Christian group). I think the “ultimate sacrifice” for Christians should not be “laying down your life” for someone – it should be – living each day fully with and for that person. If you feel resentful doing it, you're with the wrong person. Back to “sacrifice the world”. It should be clear what I'm driving at here. True love can endure all things. But no life is more precious than another. You can lay down your life for your wife, but she is not worth another – you don't have the right to choose that. Even in some hypothetical scenario – where “the devil” gave you the choice – save the world or save your wife – you cannot choose to save your wife over the world – you don't have the right. Imagine another scenario: two countries are a war. The god of one country appears to its leader and says “Sacrifice your innocent daughter to me, spill her blood in my name, and I shall make peace between you”. If the king does as his god asks, he will lose his precious daughter. If the king does not, many more of his country-folk will die. Does the king have a choice? I think he does. If I were king, I would proclaim my daughter queen and personally venture to the other kingdom to offer peace – some viable compromise – essentially saying “fuck you” to the “god”. If I died in the process, so be it – my daughter's life and the hope of peace – are worth it. What I'm driving at in this chapter is this: no matter how noble “the ends” (the objectives) – they do not justify any 14

wrongdoing. Noble goals require noble efforts. No goal should employ an ignoble effort.

15

5. Distributed Versus Centralized Infrastructure Too much of the world employs centralized infrastructure. This is a precarious position considering catastrophic failure of each subsystem. Our waste treatment, water supply, electricity supply, and food supply subsystems are horrifically antiquated in terms of recycling and decentralization. Each subsystem can be “dealt with” locally – ideally, at home. Imagine the resource savings if we used composting toilets instead of centralized waste treatment. Coupled with intensive symbiotic horticulture, much of our foodstuffs could be grown and prepared at home. The sewage lines and treatment plants would not need to be constructed in the first place. So, imagine an intensive garden equivalent to a half-acre plot of land growing vegetables and fruits in symbiotic companionship with each other. Once established, this garden could be tended by one person easily in their “spare time” - the same person who benefits from the garden. Of course, a home houses a family and each member could take turns tending a larger garden which feeds the entire family – the bulk of their nutritional needs. The reason I emphasize waste treatment is because too much waste is wasted. ;) At this point in the history of recycling, anyone who has seen a working television or been online should be aware of the concept and the desperate situation of the earth and its inhabitants. I'm not going to waste our time debating it; everyone reading this book should be inclined to recycle. The purpose of this chapter is to stimulate new home buyers (or second home buyers) to “go green”. 16

It might be somewhat more expensive to install solar panels and construct conservatively, but everyone should be aware of the longterm “earth savings” and family savings. If you insulate, if you use materials that reflect heat instead of absorb (in the tropics or semi-tropics), if you attempt to utilize “local energy” (solar panels), then your house can be cooled to comfort much less expensively. There are attempts to construct “zero energy” (zero net energy consumption) and “zero emission” (zero green-house-gas emission) homes. If you are buying or building a home, please consider “going green” – if only partially: install one composting toilet, use the product to fertilize a small garden, and show your family what can be done. :) Later, after some practice, we can learn how to construct green office buildings. Perhaps the product of those buildings can be used in nearby farms and vice versa. Finally, perhaps industry can create greener manufacturing plants – those that consume more recycled goods and produce more recyclable “wastes”.

17

6. Explicit Tolerance We need to do more than lip-service to the idea of tolerance. We need to promote and encourage cultural diversity. Imagine a homogeneous earth where all people dress, eat, speak, and think similarly. I can't imagine a more boring hell. And I'm convinced that cultural and individual diversity increase the survivability of the human race. An organism fits a particular niche in the environment via what it consumes, excretes, and characteristics/traits of the organism. A seal can escape a shark by running onto land so landmobility has distinct advantages for it. A hungry shark can be seen chasing an animal right to the beach so fortunately (for creatures like man) there are limits to its foraging range. Another water creature with limited land-mobility is the catfish. I had the “joy” of stepping on one inadvertently as a boy. It was crossing from a lagoon to a larger lake (near where I grew up). I was a little angry about being poked in the foot but realized it must be going somewhere so I went back, looked at the direction of travel, picked it up (carefully), and put it in the lake where it was heading. (That Summer was very dry and the lagoon became a pond – isolated from the larger lake.) The interesting feature of its travel was that it was not crossing at the marshy area which connected lake and lagoon. It was crossing at a narrower isthmus of land (albeit higher) – almost as if it had crossed before and knew where the narrower passage was. I can't ascribe that much intelligence to the animal but the behavior is certainly interesting. Many animals will make seasonal migrations which carry them through difficult domains which require them to swim (when normally they are not swimmers) or walk (when normally they are not walkers). Flying animals such as birds and bats have some distinct advantages associated with flight but also some 18

limitations: bats cannot fly in daytime because of overheating from heat absorption in their wings. They're almost blind so they use sonar to find, catch, and eat bugs in flight (and also use their very sensitive hearing – you can feed bats small bread balls by throwing them into the air). Dolphins use sonar more than just for location: they can stun fish with intense beams of sound – making them much easier to catch and eat. So the niche a particular organism fills can be multifaceted depending on its adaptations. When was the first sonar-stunning dolphin? When was the first free-flying bat? Once the adaptation was made, did all organisms “follow suit” by “those that thrive, procreate”? How long did it take for the adaptation to spread to all organisms in a species? Lets turn the discussion toward humans and develop it. What adaptations make us unique? Certainly our “big brains” (brain to body-weight ratios) do. These developed fairly recently in evolutionary history. What about behavioral adaptations? These are extremely difficult to pinpoint in history – when they developed – there has to be some artifacts associated with those adaptations to make them “visible” archeologically. We can't even narrow down when we developed fire. Other than computer simulation, we can observe a trait in another species and conjecture when it developed for them. We can observe how widespread the trait is in that species. Some attempts have been made for traits such as altruism. Those are interesting but more appropriate for this discussion is the examination of behavioral traits, in human beings, such as compassion and attempt to measure their “effectiveness” in some consistent and rational manner. Fear, jealousy, anger, frustration, and hate are all emotions which must have some adaptive value or they would not exist. They have a function in the “human animal” and therefore society. But I contend these are outdated adaptations which were helpful in the “infancy” stage of human civilization. True, 19

they have personal utility when we are threatened or our family is threatened. Therefore, they should not be “erased” from our collective DNA or psyche. But they, and all their derivatives, should not be used to formulate or develop a civilization. Plato's “supremely important” justice is basically a “civilized” form of revenge. It's the “dark side” of the Golden Rule: “you did something that we don't like, we're pissed off, and we're gonna punish you!” That's not civilized; it's childish. A more civilized approach would be to make it impossible for an individual to reproduce: vasectomy or tubal ligation. And I would only reserve that for extremely violent cases. Give them the choice to be euthanized before they're supported for life in a prison (what a waste of resources). To me, our “civilization” is adolescent at best. We haven't progressed much past the “cave man” – telling stories around the fire – visualizing them in the fire. The listener was required to have an active imagination. But today's storytelling is so passive. It's the brain-drain soul-sucking TV I'm talking about. Movies are wonderful – they're an art form. But the “news” – so full of hype and advertisement – so Pavlovian. It's demeaning and dehumanizing to watch. In a roundabout way, I've tried to present the advantages of certain behavioral traits – or rather, the disadvantages of certain behavioral traits. When a trait emerges, it has certain obvious advantages – or functions. But those functions are not necessarily advantageous to a lasting civilization. Diversity is a kind of hyper-trait which is a qualitative measure of the number of other traits. Until we invent more useful quantitative measures, diversity will “have to do”. It should be clear that diversity – at cultural and individual levels – is paramount to a thriving civilization. Human behavioral traits are not unlike physical adaptations in other species. They enhance our niche 20

and can enhance our long-term survivability. But because of the negative manifestations of many traits, only a few traits can actually help us thrive – even considering traits that appear positive on the surface. It's very similar to the “too many cooks in the kitchen” expression. We cannot build a lasting civilization based on “all positive values” – that would only create a longer list which would still have to be ranked in order of importance. It is left to the reader to develop more useful quantitative measures of diversity – just as it is left to the reader to develop arguments for other prime value sets.

21

7. The Purpose of Education Recently, a Ft. Lauderdale newspaper posted a request for readers to identify “why education is important” to them. They restricted responses to 50 words or less. My father and I participated. My father’s response follows: Education is the bridge joining our past with the future, the materials being our hopes for the continuation of our culture, the sweat being the strength of our ideals, combined with hope, all reflecting our materialistic and spiritual natures, all providing a reason for existence. My response follows: Education Should: fundamentally teach math and language, inspire students to develop their potential and reach for their dreams, assist in developing dreams if they have none, provide special assistance for handicapped/disadvantaged children, emphasize the values: respect and trust, and encourage students to make significant positive lasting contributions to society. My father’s response can be partially understood by the fact that: he has a master degree in literature, in education, he is an accomplished artist, and he is a dedicated author. (The following was created in response to a CELTA course I took in Chiangmai in the Fall of '07. CELTA is an acronym for (Cambridge) Certificate blabla Adults.;) If I was asked to teach a CELTA lesson, I would include three things: the importance of content, the Blabla Game, and 22

the Implicit Teaching Contract. If CELTA taught gardening, you would 'get the techniques' (if you were a good observer and note-taker), but you probably would not make a connection between gardening and teaching (unless you were an experienced/educated educator). The choice of content is absolutely vital for two reasons: for you and for the students. As we will see, 'for you' is actually 'for the students' .. For you means: how important the material is for you – what it means to you. If you are 'into' the material, you will be enthusiastic about it with your students. If you are apathetic/neutral about the material, at best, you will be a robot in front of the class. And if you despise/hate the material, you might be entertaining, but you will never teach the material. For the students: make it relate to them. This does not mean – make them relate to it! If you think you can cleverly trick your students into absorbing some concept you think is important, but has no relevancy to their lives, you are setting yourself up for dismal failure and personal humiliation. You must consider culture, you must consider age-appropriateness, and you must consider the individuals – as you prepare your lesson. If your lesson contains some exercise where students mingle about muttering inane phrases to each other – and your students are health professionals and professors, it might be fun and relaxing after a hard day at work (for them and for you), but at (least at) some visceral/unconscious level, they will be asking themselves (and probably each other) “What the hell are we doing!” Make the content relate to them. 23

Many non-educators (and some educators) make the fatal mistake: 'baby talk' = 'baby brain'. Everybody learning English, at first, speaks like a baby. I don't mean “goo goo gah gah”. I mean their phrases are simplistic and extremely limited in number. Never never never 'talk down' to your students – no matter their age group or backgrounds. Even if you are teaching pre-school students, it doesn't matter: human beings are extremely sensitive to / aware of humiliation. Never use humiliation in the classroom. Never use humiliation in a oneon-one tutoring session. They will never forgive you; they will never forget; they will never learn from you. Respect and trust are the fundamental values in the classroom and life. We will touch on them later in the Implicit Contract. But first, let's get into a cool game: the Blabla Game or sometimes called the Attention Game. (Blabla Game deleted for brevity.) The Implicit Teaching Contract When I walk into a classroom, there is an implicit contract between me and the students: for me to maximize learning and meaning – and to minimize confusion and meaninglessness. From students, I expect three things: trust (in me and the contract above), respect (for me and each other), and – for them to try their best. So actually, there are three sides to the contract: from me to students, from students to me, and from students to each other. You could represent this contract as a triangle: [Inside the triangle are my three expectations. On the edges of the triangle are the three interaction patterns.] 24

Also implicit in the contract are two factors: inspiration and ‘the human connection’. It is my job to inspire students to fulfill their potential as contributing human beings. This is not done by formula or pushing. This is done by inspiration and enthusiasm. With young adults, many are ‘finding their way’ – in college or exploratory relationships. These adults need to be encouraged to find their way which maximizes fulfillment and contribution toward humanity. I believe the ‘three Cs’ need to be emphasized in subtle ways: curiosity, creativity, and compassion. The human connection is the bond between student and teacher which is not unlike family. A kind of love and respect can be built which could last a lifetime. Faith in potential is an underrated commodity in our society; it is power. To say from the heart “I believe in you” is more powerful than “I love you”. No matter what your subject is, you can impart values which engender a worthy civilization – a worthy race. We are not worthy because we simply exist; we are worthy for how we treat each other and other things. If we cannot respect each other, if we cannot respect our planet, we are surely doomed. Trust is a leap of faith: it is the greatest gift you can give another human being. Trust and respect are the foundation for anything meaningful. In summary, I am not a ‘teaching machine’; I am a link for students to their own destinies. The only way for our civilization to advance is to focus on those values above. The best way for that to happen is for teachers to Cherish their students.

25

8. Three Technologies That Can Save the World Consider the following prediction was made before genomics, biotechnology, and stem-cell research existed. As I grew up, I saw the amazing spin-offs of the space-race (to the Moon). I also witnessed firsthand the death of American enthusiasm for space. Even so, I realized the power of dreams. I made a prediction about human destiny – that three technologies would feature predominantly: space, AI/computers, and genetics. This was more than a prediction – it was a recipe for survival. We desperately need these key technologies to survive and better ourselves. We cannot focus only on problems of Earth or single problems like HIV/AIDS. This is narrow-minded and short-term. And to focus on a single problem out-of-context cannot really solve the problem. True, we are caretakers of the Earth – that is a huge responsibility. But we are also caretakers of ourselves – the human race – and we need components of the unknown: to add vitality to our racial experiences (if not DNA), to enrich, and diversify us. Consider the two concepts of gene-pool and key-traits. What is it about the human gene-pool that give us the competitive edge over other species? Our intelligence? Our adaptability? I believe those qualities enabled us to dominate this planet, but others will enable us to survive and thrive as a race. A good analogy is a human baby vs adult. What you need to thrive as a baby is different than what you need as an adult. As a baby, you need a nurturing environment – flexible yet protective. As an adult, you need a freer environment – that which allows you to grow and contribute as an individual. The push into space will expose us to unknown dangers, surely. But it will also expose us to essential unknown factors which will guide us away from stagnation and eventual extinction. 26

The other essentials are computers and genetics. Genetics and associated disciplines have attested their own importance over the last few years. The fields are maturing at an exponential rate. There are two aspects which I believe need more liberty: human and animal genetics. I believe the animal rights groups need to “step down” and allow some scientific freedom for researchers developing custom designed organisms: from single cells to whale-sized. What we can imagine – we should have freedom to make – as long as we show respect to our creations. Only sick-minded individuals want to create monsters and have them suffer. Don't confuse me with the villain from science-fiction movies – I only want benefits for humankind and respect toward everything. Maybe this can be felt or read from the following. I think that human genetics should be made “wide open” (with some rational and respectful restraint). We should be free to tamper with our own genes as we desire. If we have the means and desire to make a clone, what's the “big deal”? Cloning will never be a real problem – unless governments make it mandatory to clone certain individuals (or not clone certain individuals). Natural selection will do (take care of) the rest. If you create an individual with more compassion, what's the crime? If you create one with higher intelligence or greater endurance, is it playing God? I don't think so. It's our revulsion of such technology that needs manipulation – not our morality structure. (This is only a joke but – maybe we could find the gene for “revulsion to genetic manipulation” and delete it from the human gene-pool.) I can be so caddy because I'm so sick-and-tired of high-and-mighty moralists or ethicists trying to tell other scientists – what they can and cannot do in their research – particularly about the human genome. My two top values – ingrained in my soul – are trust and respect. I don't want to create monsters anymore than the fictional Frankenstein didn't. I don't want anybody or anything to suffer. But good science requires experimentation. 27

And as any scientist knows, there are many mistakes before we come up with a success. Hopefully, we can avoid aborted fetuses in our search for a more compassionate human by intelligent design or cleverly using computers. The future is wide-open – as long as our minds are. Science-fiction has done a disservice to machine intelligence. The movie so loved by fans (including me) which did so much damage was 2001. The others were Terminator and Matrix. Who was the villain in all three movies? The machine. Wonderfully, they were vindicated in sequels, but fans had to endure grueling images of apocalyptic horror before they were. In Alien we were treated with a similar villain-redemption scenario (several times). I, Robot had an interesting twist about dual-intelligence but still featured the aforementioned scenario. Only in Bicentennial Man and AI were we allowed to dream of altruistic machines. In the former, we experienced a “Datalike” (Star Trek Next Generation) character who yearned to be human. And only in AI did they evolve into something beyond human and machine. Those three linked concepts could very well be the product of human destiny: evolved altruistic machines. It is my hope and prayer that we share a common destiny with such machines. It should be clear that I have faith in human ingenuity and “luck” (divine providence or whatever you want to call it). We've made some pretty stupid mistakes in our development: use of nuclear weapons on ourselves, firebombing entire cities into oblivion (Tokyo in WWII),.. The list of horrors seems endless. And most likely, we will make some similar mistakes with machine intelligence when we finally develop it: enslave or subjugate it. But it doesn't have to be that way. We could assign rights to intelligent machines – even before they're developed. 28

And I think our way of going about development of intelligent machines has been “all wrong” (in our approaches). We need to model and synthesize senses and consciousness. Awareness is not a divine aspect of humanity – it can be understood and modeled. If we stop treating it like some mystical quality, progress can be made. It is my understanding that in such a model, we need a minimum of two cross-connected “senses” (vision and hearing are good examples) which provide the basis for an explicit model of self-inclusive “local reality” – that model being part of what we call/label “awareness”. If you read above carefully, you will see a “model within a model” which is a kind of symbolic recursion, I believe, required for machine awareness. Also required is a “visual register” not unlike our short-term memories – but devoted to images. How do we dream (when we sleep)? What are the “mechanics” involved? This visual register is controlled by another “image generator” which feeds imagery to the register. So indeed, our minds include a kind of dual-intelligence illustrated by I, Robot – more easily understood by examining the hemispherical architecture of our brains. (In some ways, we have “two brains” in one.) It's possible that this dual-architecture is required for consciousness, but I have my doubts. I believe consciousness is more about sets of cross-verifying senses and registers than dual-architecture. Let's try to implement these models and discover the truth.

29

9. Two Types of Companies There is an old proverb: A slave cannot serve two masters – which is so very true. By same token, a company cannot have two “main goals” – and do them both well; one will always suffer. A company either serves investors – or – it serves its customers. A company can proclaim “Customers are number one!” But if they make return to investors their number one priority, the prior expression is no more than lip service to the concept. I have direct experiences confirming this – working for both large and small companies. While working for a large telecommunications company in the US, I had the benefit of completing a week-long course called “Quality of Service”. It was wonderful and customer focused. But at the end of the course, they tried to “slip in” the idea that investors were also customers and they had to be satisfied too. The idea is great, but cannot be done in practice. If your only customers are investors, true, you can focus on them and satisfy them. But if your customers are investors and “end users” (typically the general public), in practice – it becomes like trying to ride two horses at once – or slaving for two masters. It can't be done. The two customers want two distinctly different things: one wants a (quick and high) return on their investment and the other wants low cost quality services. The only way to deliver a significant return on an investment is to basically screw the end-customer giving them shoddy merchandise or services at inflated prices. (My brother, who is a small business owner in the States, verbally confirmed this almost daily.) My philosophy about “the whole thing” is to focus on the end-customer: you give them true quality products and services, you gain loyalty. It's called retention in marketing terms. Return on investment will be small – but it will always be positive. The only reason you will lose customers is if 30

somebody else can “do it cheaper”. In that case, there will always be a “China” or “India” where labor is less expensive and manufacturing will migrate there. Until we enforce a world-wide minimum wage, this will always be the reality for industrialized nations. As a world-citizen, I need more than a world-wide minimum wage. I need freedom to move and work where there are jobs. I have valuable skills as a telecommunications technician, but cannot work in many countries because of a preference for “natives” or locals for those jobs. It's sickening and frustrating. I recognize and acknowledge the motivations for such preferences, but I cannot approve of the result – not when I have a new family to support – it's “bullshit” to me. Many people would say “go to America”, but I have a revulsion for America – because of my many negative experiences there and because of the current administration's policies and practices. My trust in other Americans has been broken (with a capital “B”) after being metaphorically raped by a locally powerful family and their minions (that story not to be told in this book). That value and respect – should be clear – why they are so important to me..

31

10. The Two Fundamental Values of Civilization I have two “theories” about why certain values are important to us. One is a gut feeling about “what works” (apparently). Ask a newly married American girl what's most important to her and I'd guess she'd say her husband. Or perhaps her parents. The other theory comes from my experiences. I value what I lack in life. I have not had enough trust and respect so it becomes starkly evident – the requirements of a successful relationship. One way to find the essentials of something is to sequentially “take things away” from an operating example and see if it “still works”. In the old days of internal combustion, you could do this with car engines: remove or modify parts and see how they affected engine performance (or activity – would it still run?). You could have done this similar procedure with tubetype TVs. (Ah, the old days.) More at hand, you can consider your most important relationship – right now. Why are they important to you? Make a list of reasons. Then, hypothetically eliminate each one – starting with the least important. Could your relationship still work after each elimination? In this way, you can find the essentials of your relationship. I'm guessing pretty high on your list will be several things: the desire to make your partner happy, love, the desire for your partner to make you happy, and stability/freedom (depending on your age). What we take for granted – what we assume are implicit are: respect and trust. If I reminded you earlier you'd say “Sure, those are given.” But try to imagine your relationship without one of those things and tell me how long it would last. Spend years yearning for respect. (You find you have to “do your own thing”, find what inspires you, and “fuck” the rest.) Get played like a fool and have your trust in other human beings broken “to the bone”. 32

(You find it comes back very slowly and that a little jadedness is inevitable. You also find that innocents attract each other and again you have to “fuck” the rest.) Please forgive the following “ramble session”. Everyone's different. Everyone's gotta find their own path. But the trials I've endured, and their resulting insights, are worth sharing. Most of my life I've felt and experienced exclusion. It's not for lack of trying to “fit in”; it's not for lack of trying to find my niche. And I have not set myself up for exclusion as some have thought about me. I've simply tried to be myself in a changing world full of different social environments. Integrity is important to me and if you “watch me in action” (observe me in various social settings), you can immediately see my efforts to remain self-integral. I have to be true to myself – and be myself. I'm not abrasive, but I do take a stand about many things. If I don't know anything about what's being presented, I usually take a back-seat and try to absorb everything – if it's relevant to my life. If I know something worthwhile about the subject, I may try to interject that point if I think it's relevant to the current setting (and worthwhile to other participants). I don't want to waste your time complaining about my recent Celta experience, but I will tell you how it ended so that you can understand “where I'm coming from”. I was the “lucky fellow” to have failed the course in that month's run. Yes, I'm a little resentful. And yes, I feel under-appreciated. Try to understand my perspective. Both my parents are retired teachers. My oldest brother is a teacher. I have taught before (admittedly, not very successfully). But I do reach students. There's a connection that cannot be impersonated or imitated. The simple fact is that I have some unique experiences and can reach students with my intensity and passion. I haven't given up yet. I'm not burnt-out yet. People still inspire me. And I have to gently say “fuck you” to anyone who tries to “show me another way” (“shove down my throat” like Celta). I take what I can learn/absorb and fuck the 33

rest. Reading above may be entertaining, but does it convince you the importance of trust and respect? Probably not. Let's try to present a rational argument. Many people would recognize the validity of the following connection: the decay of American society with the disruption of the American family. Even our highly esteemed president recognizes this connection. It's a bit outdated, but many consider the fundamental unit of society to be the family. The family is a unit of relationships. What is the most important thing for children to remember? Respect for parents. And implicitly: trust that parents will act in children's best interests. So, trust and respect are fundamental for the family to exist. Without them, the family cannot exist. If we tentatively take the family as the fundamental unit of society, then trust and respect are indispensable to society. My experiences seem to bear out this argument. Love should be fundamental to family and society as well, but you cannot force love anymore than you can force creativity. Love, as creativity, can only be inspired. It is my hope this book inspires readers to live more fulfilled lives: inspire true love – whether for science or another person – and live with integrity: be yourself. Nothing of value is gained by “ass kissing”, posturing, or pretending. Be yourself. And remember that nothing of value is gained without a little trust or respect – if only – in yourself. A-fucking-men. It's not a stretch to go from society to civilization. A fair definition of the latter is an enduring culture. What helps us endure? Diversity and the spirit of the Socratic method: question everything – most especially yourself. (Please don't sigh in despair for one moment I say “be yourself” then the next moment I say “question yourself”. I'm not saying “always 34

ride the fence” – far from it – that makes me want to throw up. Be sure of yourself but be able to question your motives – is all that I'm saying.) So diversity helps us endure, but what enables us to endure? Platonic values? I don't think so. Build a society on Platonic values and it may endure (for a time) but will it be vibrant? Look at Rome. Look at Imperial America. They both fell (or will fall). It was not lead pipes which caused the fall of the Roman Empire. It will not be hedonism or special interest groups which cause the fall of Imperial America. Partially (or indirectly), it's all the damn lawyers. But the real culprit is the basis for our cultures: Platonic values. Another (long term) destructive value is competitiveness. Americans see it as supremely important and requisite for a vibrant and lasting society (business climate). I see it as ultimately destructive and socially divisive. So you can see one reason why I feel I don't belong in America. From my perspective, Americans are driving this “spaceship Earth” right down the proverbial toilet. Our selfishness, greed, need to dominate, satisfy appearance, and preference for material things – will pull the handle. This model is being emulated throughout the world. We are destroying ourselves and our beautiful home. I'm sorry to end a chapter on a negative note but what can I do? Except – tell the truth from my perspective.

11. Example Design: A Human Supporting Ecosystem 35

In this chapter, you are the designer and I am the customer. I am asking you to please design a human supporting ecosystem for a lunar base of 50 or so inhabitants. You decide the supporting components, but make sure nutritional requirements are met. Make sure there is variety in the diet. Make sure any animals are treated humanely (not excessively so – just use the test – if you were the animal, are you made to suffer?). The “end users” are the 50 or so inhabitants. Minimize some factors as you design: need for raw materials from Earth, energy consumption, and human (end user) intervention. Use existing and easily obtainable species. Make sure you account for disease/pest control and any side effects of methods used to control them. Use waste recycling whenever possible (remember that end users are part of the system!). Other than utilizing the systems approach outlined above, you're free to go “hog wild!” on this design – use your imagination! That's part of the systems approach! :) As the design customer, I'm only asking for the nutritional support system – not the base design itself – though of course – you're free to design as much as you're inspired. Oxygen is not a nutrition, but it is a requirement of human beings and typically a prime component of an animal supporting ecosystem. Therefore, so is waste CO2. The nitrogen we breath is an inert gas, but vital to plants (research nitrogen fixing). In the process of completing this chapter, you will be learning the systems approach (by doing it!). You will learn a great deal about ecosystems (which are vital to Earth and us!). And you will learn about the physical requirements of human beings (we need sunlight to thrive!). (A major design question you must answer is to use aqua-culture or soil techniques? One or the other, you must determine nutritional requirements of the plants you've chosen and how those will be met.) 36

Why 50 or so end users? That's about 10 families. Why would I ask a man/woman to separate from his/her family to live on the Moon? That's crazy.. Please send me your design in pdf format and I will post those that are interesting and authentic on an appropriate website. My email is [email protected] ..Is your system feasible? Is your system reliable? Do you have backups of critical subsystems? What are installation, operational, and maintenance costs? In answering these questions, you apply the systems approach..

12. Are We Alone? 37

The following section was a second letter to Curtis Cooperman, initial publisher for Riley Martin, who has been interviewing a man from Hawaii named Michael. Michael claims to have been taken to the same mothership Riley claimed – supposedly, they even met there. I'm interested but very cautious – as you can see from my letter.. (The referenced podcasts are available at helloearth.info) dear curtis, please forward the letter below to Michael .. i think you would find much of my statements "offensive" (i'm guessing) so perhaps it's best you do not read it yourself - that's up to you .. i have a degree in statistics (basically math) so i know about math to the senior level .. when you do a proof, you have other proofs and definitions to work from .. you have human (and i guess Biaavian) inspiration .. you have many tools that may help you perform that proof .. you can try working backwards from the conclusion .. you can try to use "proof by contradiction" .. so many tools are available .. math is considered "the pure" (or core science) .. everything in science requires evidence .. proofs in math are the same as evidence in other branches of science .. physics tries to be like math but has to have basis in reality .. there should be a one-to-one correspondence between concepts/reality/equations .. i believe physicists have lost touch with reality today - much in the same way Riley has lost touch with his original mission (even tho he still generates tickets) .. what i'm trying to say is - many people require evidence to believe in something and for each person it's different .. my letter to Michael talks about evidence and perceptions .. "read it at your own risk" ;) hehe, sam [listening to podcast 6] I agree with Michael. We are "cut off" from the rest of the universe in many ways.. I sometimes feel our lives (human lives) are like thoughts in the mind of God (as 38

in – the universe = the mind of god).. But we are disconnected because of our spiritual confusion. Many of us think we know god or understand our place in the universe but then commit some atrocity (like destroy Buddha statues and call that "divinely inspired" – bullshit to me).. I despise destruction (especially of art). I think we should cultivate: curiosity, creativity, compassion, respect, and trust. BUT NOT FORCE THEM (see Out of the Silent Planet by C.S. Lewis) – trying to force them creates another kind of spiritual death. The best kind of discipline is internally generated. Our "job" (as adults) is to inspire children to be self-disciplined, curious, creative, compassionate, respectful, and trusting. If we inspire the opposites, we instill spiritual death through negativity. If we try to force anything, we instill spiritual death via subjugation. In the movie/book Razor's Edge, an individual's "path of salvation" is described as "walking on a razor's edge" – lean too much one way – and you fall off. Hehe – at the end – you have bloody feet (I guess they're trying to say life is full of suffering?) Many people have suffering and Buddhists explain the source as desire. If we control our desires, we control how much suffering we experience. It has been explained to me by a Catholic nun, who is an instructor at Michigan State University, that the Divine has many faces/facets. Buddhists see one side, Muslims – another, Christians – another, etc.. We limit the Infinite because of our finite minds. If we could perceive things from a Divine perspective, we would experience the full One-ness of God and understand everything's place in the universe. [smile] I agree with her. We connect to God through our hearts/spirits – the outer circle Michael was talking about. I would be interested to hear Michael describe the circles/spheres of God. As a physicist, I cannot prove the spirit exists and talk about our hearts connecting to God – but this is the same as Michael's outer circle – or spirit. Once we connect to God, it is up to us to 39

integrate ourselves into God. If we connect through meditation, that is one pathway and has its unique attributes/characteristics. God is perceived and we experience: One-ness, bliss, peace, clarity, and many other things. If we think about God as: control, force, or subjugation – we are missing the point and not truly perceiving God. We are perceiving something else (perhaps our own egos or idea of what "god" is). I want to also talk about "the other way": spiritual death via confusion. Some spiritualists believe "anything goes" (there are infinite paths to God and almost anything is allowable as long as we don't harm others), but this opens the way to Satanism and other crazy ways to "find god" (like beating one-self). The minute we restrict God, is the time we take a step away from God (like Christians saying – the ONLY path to the Father is through Jesus). I don't agree with those spiritualists who say "anything goes" and at the same time – I don't agree with restrictive religions like Christianity. If we can agree that Jesus = love, then yes – the only path to the Father is through love. Love is an example (like curiosity, creativity, and compassion) of "the best of us" – I believe God is all those things and more [smile]. It may sound like I'm babbling/rambling, but if you re-read above several times (or show to Michael), I think you might perceive my intentions and motivations for writing it. I agree with Michael that these "life carriers" (the Biaavians) have enormous responsibility as our "caretakers" (to not upset the "natural order of things" – not create a welfare planet, etc). BUT – not fully revealing themselves is a kind of deception and deception = lie (which is many people describe as sin or a kind of spiritual death or "when someone lies, they kill a part of themselves"). So in a sense, the Biaavians are committing sin by not fully revealing themselves to us – keeping us disconnected from God by deception. I understand they have to wear "kid gloves" when dealing with us because of our 40

sensitive and developing nature/position. Perhaps the best way for them to fully introduce themselves is to proclaim: We are the Biaavians and we cannot solve your problems for you! I feel children have a right to know who their parents are: even though the Biaavians are our surrogate parents, we have a right to know about them – how they have guided us and intervened in our past. It's possible that they used a meteor to kill most of the dinosaurs so that human life could evolve here – if that's true – we should know. I would like to interview Tan or one of the Elders. I have many many questions. Did the Biaavians use a meteor to destroy most of the dinosaurs so that human life could evolve here? If so, what other interventions have they done with us in our past? Was the "Noah flood" an intervention like the meteor that destroyed most of the dinosaurs? Or was it just a "freak of nature"? If they have performed many interventions on our behalf, in our past, what does it matter if they should fully reveal themselves now? If they have performed many interventions on our behalf, they have basically created the human race and it should not matter if they fully reveal themselves to us (since – if they created us, revealing that knowledge to us should be "no big deal"). It's like saying to a girl "I'm your father." What's the big deal? If I'm her father, I should "own up to it" (take responsibility for her). Some people think that girl should be a "certain age" before I tell her – but I don't think so – I think – the earlier the better. Why should I delay in telling her? So it won't affect her development? Bullshit. It doesn't make any sense to delay in telling her. She can understand that I'm her "papa" at a very early age.. We have space and rudimentary fusion technology. We understand time-lines and the system's approach. We have a rudimentary spiritual understanding (a beginning is better than nothing). If they make it clear that they cannot solve our 41

problems, there is no reason the Biaavians cannot fully reveal themselves to us now. [finished podcast 6] Sometimes I feel like "I've read this before" or "I've heard this before" like when I was listening about Michael and his wife being visited by Biaavians. Not much new information in podcast 6 except for the fact that there are many navigators. So that means many people were taken aboard the mother-ship with title as navigator? I question many things Michael states: go to a church to find God – a person does not need to go to any church to find God, he implies God wants to be worshipped and followed – God is infinite – God does not need our worship or obedient servants – He wants us to be Free (and live in Grace), and One-ness with God will not save the planet – we need to stop raping the planet and hoarding resources. It is true – if we lived in true Grace (One-ness with God), we would have divine Awareness and be unable to rape the planet or hoard resources. But I believe the simple awareness that we do wrong by raping and hoarding is required before we achieve Awareness. It is not the other way around. Please share this letter with Michael – I believe he will understand my message. I believe everyone must find their own path to God. For many – church is not the best way (like me). And Jesus is most certainly not the only way to the Father. Michael says "this is not a new religion", but he needs to stop referring to God and Jesus if he really means that. He suggests "go to church", but if that is not religious – what is? If Riley is like a commercial for the Biaavians, Michael is a commercial for Christianity. Many people can find God by simply walking in the woods or climbing a tree. Read The Gospel of Thomas – you can find the true words of Jesus there. Read the Gospel of Judas. There are so many genuine sources of wisdom and inspiration. Go for a 42

walk in the woods. Climb a tree. Feel the Presence of God. God is Everywhere – in Everything. One "final note": Riley contends these are the "end times" (like in the Bible – Revelations) – there is an unavoidable ecological catastrophe staring us in the face at 2012. If you visit climateprediction.net (a British science publication), you can see scientific evidence (which basically means something that is testable/verifiable, reproducible (independent investigators can test the same thing), and includes error analysis – a "number is meaningless" unless you have some idea of errormargins) that agrees with Riley's concept. Information on that website contends the date is "farther out" (farther into the future), but basically agrees – we are headed for some rough times. Michael seems to avoid talking about that. He pushes Christianity and the Urontia book. Go to church.. Going to church will not stop the up-coming ecological catastrophe. Even if we stop all green-house gas emissions, the Earth will still warm up because the Earth is a dynamical system – past inputs affect present outputs/states. Riley is comical in his expressions and antics – but his emphasis (in his book) seems appropriate: we have literally fucked our planet and each other to the point of death and now we must pay the price (you reap what you sow). Michael has not lost his preacher style or emphasis. Just because he saw the Elders singing doesn't mean that's all they do. They are thinkers; they are scientists; they are artists. I think it's wrong to focus on the spiritual side and make them appear like priests – he sees the religious side because he spent seven years of his new adult life as a minister. Our current perceptions are dictated by our past experiences. He sees the Elders and Biaavians as "the ultimate" spiritual creatures because he values spirituality above all else. He could not see them any other way. But one person's perspective is not "the best" perspective – one navigator is no better than another. 43

All he can do is point the way for people like him (not me). I need a navigator who is a compassionate scientist. I would be a good choice for that kind of navigator. Why not make a suggestion to the Elders via Michael that they choose me for a "compassionate scientist" navigator? I'm being a bit facetious because I think Michael's experiences have gone a little to his head – and made him feel more important than he actually is – and also – that he feels his ideas are "the best or truest" (his perceptions of the Biaavians). I really would like you to share this email with Michael. I want him to think about his perceptions in the context of his experiences. I think everyone should look at themselves this way. It is useful to understand our misperceptions or over-emphasis. I look for scientific evidence because I was trained fully in the scientific method. I think many objective thinkers can appreciate this. I see the Biaavians as "the ultimate scientists" because they are. I know that is not the most important aspect of their character, but it is very important (they could not have created/manipulated life here on Earth if it were not for their science). How about that? (To use Michael's expression.) The following was a web post I had made on Godlike Productions. I had previously done a search to find something on “illuminated object near saturn” which was not hosted by Curtis or Riley. In the recent crash of my XP Windows machine, I lost my hard-drive and the previous letters.. It appears that some people use that site to make fun of Riley. I was trying to be informative. the following letter was the third addressed to michael and curtis but never sent.. michael claims to have been taken to the same mothership riley claims.. curtis was the original publisher for riley's "the coming of tan".. and my comments reflect on the book, riley, michael, and curtis.. you can visit curtis' 44

website at: helloearth.info and you can email me at 8P at unc dot edu.. To Curtis and Michael, I keep forgetting to address what I mean by “fully reveal”. Fully reveal is not parking the mother-ship near Saturn and waiting for our telescopes to detect it. Fully reveal is not giving two men (Riley and Michael) some experiences and then erasing their memories. Fully reveal would be to park their mother-ship in Earth orbit. Fully reveal would be a world-wide TV broadcast addressing their intentions toward us. Fully reveal would allow any human to interview Tan or Biaavian Elder in public. Giving Riley and Michael some experiences and then erasing their memories sounds too much like a shared delusion. That’s why I keep asking for some incontrovertible evidence of the Biaavians and their intentions toward us. Michael keeps saying “this is not a new religion” but he and Riley expect us to swallow all this on faith – and faith is the core of all religions. Some blurry pictures, hand-drawn symbols, and a book of “recollections” do not constitute proof. Michael says “Question was not real” which I take to mean that he was created by the Biaavians to make Riley more comfortable.. Question was a kind of illusion. What else was illusion? Perhaps Riley’s trip to the mother-ship was also illusion? Perhaps the Biaavians themselves were an illusion? People perceive what they expect to perceive (many times – these expectations are fully subconscious/unconscious). People see what they need to see. Perhaps Riley and Michael felt so insignificant and powerless in their own lives that they created 45

a delusion that would make them feel more significant and powerful. This is no problem if they keep to themselves. But they give hope to people. If indeed their perceptions are delusion, they “pull” others into their delusion with their writings and speech. They spread their “sickness” via publications and the internet. A fundamentalist Christian might see them as false prophets. They might see them as inspired by Satan.. What’s more likely? Some advanced race actually cares about humanity and bring two men to their mother-ship to show them around – only later allowing them to recall their experiences – or – they share a common delusion based on feelings of insignificance and powerlessness? You enjoy Michael because you find him interesting, intriguing, and genuine. Perhaps compared to Riley, he is. I’m sure he’s refreshing compared to Riley – right now. But I contend you need him more than anything else – right now in your life. We see what we choose to see. We believe what we need to believe. I also need to believe in the Biaavians, but I cannot make them real by faith. We humans need them to fully reveal themselves to us – to make them real to/for us – not to solve our problems – but out of simple respect and integrity. If they indeed created us, own up to it. Don’t hide out by Saturn waiting for “just before the end” – to fully reveal yourselves. Come to Earth, interview in public, and demonstrate your compassion for us. I’m not asking for a hand-out. I’m asking for a genuine relationship with our surrogate parents –which means readily available interaction with all human beings. Perhaps Tan should come to your house and interview for a pod-cast. Is he afraid to do so? Would our government try to 46

kill or capture him? Surely there must be a way for him to interview with you – since their technology is so advanced – they should be able to create a secure venue for him. If he “cannot”, that indicates to me – Michael is only interested in keeping this deception/delusion going as long as possible – to salve his own insecurity and feelings of powerlessness. I think part of my purpose in life is to “debunk” false-religions like this. If the Biaavians are real, then they should fully reveal themselves to us. If they are not, Riley and Michael should be revealed as “false prophets”. Look at Rael and Riley – they both seem primarily concerned with their financial security. Once Riley “strikes it rich”, do you really think he will continue making symbols? If Michael can gather many followers (in terms of his “vision”), he will feel secure – he will have “accomplished his mission”. (If he was like Riley or Rael, he would feel secure after he got financial security.) The cleverest false-prophet uses the name of Jesus to convince us he’s legit and “on the right side”. But perhaps he’s so deep into his own self-delusion that he cannot see what is real and what is not. Perhaps he never did. I think you are being used – by Michael and Riley. Religions were created to salve human insecurity and feelings of powerlessness. I believe God is there but has no attributes other than infinity and love. Any other attributes – we assign because of our finite minds. My own feelings of powerlessness impel me to believe in the Biaavians, but I recognize this. Therefore, I am suspicious. I have every right to question Rael, Riley, and Michael – as a free thinking individual. My brother used to visit a psychic and called it “entertainment”. Right now, that’s all your pod-casts are – entertainment. My wife thinks I waste my time writing to you. 47

But it helps me think and I enjoy “figuring things out”. Either the Biaavians exist or they don’t. There could be many reasons why Riley and Michael would invent them. I have listed a few. We will find out soon if they are real or not. If they are real, may God bless you, Riley, and Michael. If they are not, you curse yourselves in your own delusions – your deceptions of others – and by giving false hope to those who desperately need it. May God expose the truth – whatever it is. … I’ve been listening to podcast 7 and 8. I reread above to make sure it expresses what I want to say. Dear Curtis, my hostility is not directed at you or Michael. It should be clear that I’m against deceivers. Just by listening to your podcasts, a person can sense/hear the gentleness in both your voices. If you are deceiving, it is unwittingly. Riley changes his voice to sound more authoritative and so – sounds like a con-man. But, you and Michael are totally different in your approach. You guys want to help people become more attuned to God and find their path to God. It’s beautiful. But (and there is always a but), as I have written to my brother, best friend, and spoke face-to-face with both of my parents about this: I feel it is my responsibility to protect the public from potential deceivers such as you and Michael. Someone has to do it. There are already sites about cults and wonderful resources such as Wikipedia, but there needs to be an active presence to “stand up” to you guys – you need to be confronted “at your level” which means – someone like me who is well read, who is willing to research things like the Urontia Book, and who can confront you guys in a gentle way. 48

What I’m trying to say is: you need me and society needs me.. I’m guessing you never saw the movie The Last Temptation of Christ (or read the book).. It was written by Nikos Kazantzakis. He presents a compelling picture of Judas. In that rendering, Judas was a “watchdog” of Christ: he was there to make sure Jesus didn’t “fuck up” (or stray off his divine path). I’m inclined to believe it. If you read the Gospel of Judas, you’ll get a different picture of what went on – something more like the Urontia Book. The Urontia Book tries to help people find their path to God. It is beautiful just like Michael’s mission. But.. He comes across like a PR person for the Urontia Book because he pushes it so much. Even if every sentence of the Urontia Book is true, even if the Biaavians exist and care about us like Michael says, there is a LOT more to life than those things. And I don’t think the Biaavians want ANY of us to obsess about the Urontia Book or our individual path to God. We should make an honest effort to understand and find our path, but we should not obsess about them or make them the most important things in our lives. Michael seems to have done that. The best liars mix truth and lies. The best deceivers don’t even know they’re deceiving. The Urontia Book seems authoritative – it mentions Jesus a LOT. But just because a person talks about Jesus doesn’t make them good like Jesus. And just because a book presents some facts – doesn’t mean everything it states is true. When Michael talked about his experience of “moving through walls”, I became convinced his experiences were either dreams or delusions. I’ve studied physics for quite a few years and 49

what he states is physically impossible. His experiences sound more like astral projection than anything else. Or.. Here is another explanation. There was a South Florida psychiatrist who became famous for hypnotic regression of his patients – discovering their past lives etc etc.. (“Incidentally”, he became very rich from conferences on these things.) I don’t believe he was a con-man (knowingly). But.. One explanation for his patients “recalling” their past lives under hypnosis is that perhaps a “demon” (or malevolent spirit) possessed them during hypnosis and played a game with him – time after time? I think that’s more likely than all these supposed past lives that cannot be verified (because most of the details are private). Notice I keep bringing up the concept of verification. Michael even mentions it in one of the podcasts. He says that there are probably inconsistencies between his story and Riley’s. But I don’t care about inconsistency between their stories. I care about objective verification and people being deceived. It is possible that Michael’s “recollections” were personal delusion (things generated by Michael’s mind) or caused by demonic infiltration. If the latter, then that would suggest the Urontia Book was demonically inspired – not divinely inspired like the authors suggest. The purpose? Confusion: confuse the human race away from Divine Truth. The best liars mix truth and lies. The Bible took many years and men to determine what was “Divinely inspired” and what was not .. I personally think they rejected too much, but what do I know? There was a woman author who did “auto-typing” who wrote many books about “end times” (her name evades me at the moment – just like the psychiatrist). I wrote to her before she died. She made one point about “pole shift” 50

(involving ice sheets) which is possible but highly unlikely. I offered a more realistic mechanism for pole-shift and also proposed the possibility that she was demonically possessed when she did her auto-typing. But please note that I was NOT accusing her of knowingly deceiving the public. I’m interested in the search for extra-solar planets (you can find many fascinating scientific projects oriented toward this objective). I’m interested in the search for earth-like extra-solar planets. I’m interested in the search for extra-terrestrial life. I’m interested in the X-Prize and making it “cheap” for the average person to explore space. I’m interested in the SETI effort and radio astronomy. I’m interested in Riley’s story – if it’s true.. Again I ask the question: what’s more likely? Two men are taken aboard an “alien mothership”, given a tour, then have their memories selectively erased – or – they share a common delusion based on their insecurities and needs? I personally don’t believe an alien super-race will whisk away some humans “just before the end”. In the first place, we don’t deserve to be rescued. We haven’t earned it. And as I make the case above, just because Michael’s push is admirable – doesn’t mean all that he says is true. Sure we need to find our paths to God, but other things are more important: family, love, trust, and respect. There are many extra-solar planets that have been discovered in the last few years. This indicates to me that the possibility of extra-solar life “increases” proportionately. But the chance of extra-terrestrial intelligence is extremely unlikely. And the 51

chance of extra-terrestrial intelligence that is sympathetic towards (cares about) humanity is, to me, even more remote. Sure, if the Biaavians exist, if they had a hand in our evolution, then this all becomes moot. But where is the solid evidence? Michael talks about spiritual evolution – it is beautiful. The picture he paints of the Biaavians over-looking humanity is awe-inspiring. But.. Look at the age: our advances in space, computer, and medical technologies makes leaps and bounds. Do we really need the Biaavians? Probably not. If we use our growing technology wisely, we can survive. We can not only survive; we can thrive. Looking only at myself, I believe we need to believe in the Biaavians – more than we actually need them. And we don’t need them to find God. God will find us. I suspect that Rael, Riley, Michael, and all the others will be proven to spew bullshit – over the test of time. Not that all they say is bullshit (Riley has many good points about saving the earth). Michael has many good points about your search for God. But.. No matter how much I NEED to believe in the Biaavians – does not make them real. Interview Tan. Substantiate your claims. Stop making evasions or excuses. Get real. Sam Micheal

13. GP@home 52

Genetic Programming at home is a distributed computing project under development and possibly hosted by sourceforge.net. As of this moment, the project is under review by sourceforge.net staff. A detailed description, as submitted to sourceforge, follows: The purpose of the project is to unite the two concepts of genetic algorithms and distributed computing in practical modes that benefit humanity in measurable ways. My first attempt to implement the project was under Cygwin, but my Linux fluency is extremely limited. Another idea was to request the World Community Grid to host the project, but that process is lengthly, tedious, dubious, and does not force me to grow as a software system developer. According to BOINC at Berkeley, Christian Beer has created a Virtual Server that runs on VMWare Player which basically eliminates 67% of the development cost of this project. The other third is the development cost of the clients to be run on volunteer machines. I’ve attempted to develop support for this project in Yahoo Groups, but have only stimulated four individuals to “join and observe”. This is where SourceForge comes in. If I can stimulate interest among developers and advanced users to generate appropriate C++ code, to volunteer computers to be run as virtual BOINC servers, to volunteer computers to run GP-DC clients, or to stimulate interest in appropriate subprojects, then my mission here will be, at least, partially completed. Possible sub-projects, that is – projects that may utilize the GPDC paradigm, follow: 1. Xprize@home: distributed software uses GP paradigm to find optimal designs of various categories of Xprize candidates 53

(on criteria such as: aerodynamic / fuel efficiency /reliability/safety). 2. ET-Ecologies@home: extra-terrestrial ecologies at home. Simulates "alien" environments and various ecologies in order to obtain a list of likely chemicals to look for when extra-solar planetary spectrography matures to the point of detection. 3. Go-To-Mars-From-Home: apply the GP paradigm to various mission scenarios with the criteria: efficiency reliability safety – as constraints – possibly implemented as distributed software. Other sub-projects, that may benefit humanity in more direct ways – that may be implemented using the GP-DC paradigm, can be found at distributedcomputing.info, BOINC, or World Community Grid. As of 2007/JUN/29, the project has been approved by sourceforge staff. But, interest has been low: the maximum number of visits (per day) to the project pages was ten. I have recently invested considerable effort at getting BOINC-server working on my Linux machine (the computer I'm typing on now). I tried to make it a little more personal and interesting by posting a note: Subject: brief bio & purpose of gp@home Body: my name is sam micheal. i grew up in michigan with a formal background in statistics / psychology / systems science. what i learned was that it's not so much what you study/learn – it's what you do with it. i'm interested in making a significant positive lasting contribution to humanity.. gp@home is part of that .. i'm convinced boinc-server can be merged with another relevant project at sourceforge (why? look at the success of seti@home, climateprediction.net, or worldcommunitygrid!) .. 54

i know it's exceedingly difficult to inspire participation in such projects but i have to try .. i'm having fun as long as i'm learning and making progress :) and buddy, do i have a LOT to learn! :) if you won't join, at least wish me luck, sam I also wrote a letter to Skype managers today: Please forward to Skypein business managers. My wife is Thai. She comes from a small village near the Laos/Myanmar border. They do not have any land-lines in that village. Anyone who wants a phone must use an older cellphone with special roof-mounted antenna – to make it work. The service is intermittent.. I have a background in telecom so I know how the system works.. I want to install a satellite internet connection at my mother-in-law's house for the following purpose: to enable Skype wireless voip phones to connect to that satellite via router. I can install and maintain all hardware. I can also get help to translate the user interface to Thai. The problem right now is – Skypein is not available in Thailand. I need Skype to buy / make available Thai telephone numbers in order to make this business plan work. Imagine the promo potential of this concept! "Skype connects isolated Thai village to the world!" Sam Micheal I “sort of” / basically promised my mother that I would not be cynical/negative about things .. My last book, which was “this book” – written from a negative perspective, was called Dissed Messiah. It was lost (the CD I had copied it to was lost – along with the hard-drive where it was originally stored). I don't believe I “set myself up for failure”. I don't believe I “bark up 55

the wrong tree”. I try, in my judgment, where it is appropriate for me to try. I think sourceforge is the right place for me to ask for help with GP@home. I think Skype was the right company to ask about that business idea. I've got a lot of good ideas. I've got some technical aptitude. But, I'm not a business manager. I'm not a charismatic leader. I don't inspire people the way I'd like. Some time ago, I wrote an essay entitled Call Me Cassandra, or something like that. Cassandra had the curse of accurate prophecy – but no one would believe her. Riley is right – we ARE raping the planet and it WILL bite us in the ass. But, I've said it before: you cannot force a mind to open – you can only gently encourage it to open. What does Skype, Dissed Messiah, and Cassandra have to do with GP@home? Not much – please forgive me for meandering. As I learn more about BOINC-server and GP/GA (genetic programming / genetic algorithms), the more I'm convinced that the two can be merged resulting in many-fold benefits for humankind. GP/GA is a flexible approach toward problem solving. In a sense, it's automated computer programming: computer programs are “bred” and “progeny” tested against problem-specific criteria. This happens over many “generations” of programs. The end product is a particular computer program that solves a particular “well defined” problem. Dr. John Koza of Stanford is probably the strongest and most expert advocate of GP/GA. I've tried to get him involved in GP@home. BOINC-server is a product of UC Berkeley. A packaged version runs on Windows; while a more differentiated version runs on Linux/Unix. A general description of the two versions follows: 56

BOINC server via VMware: (assuming you are running a Windows machine) configure your virtual network http://www.vmware.com/support/ws5/doc/ws_net.html install and run VMware Player http://www.vmware.com/download/player/ install and run run the Debian or Ubuntu VM http://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/wiki/VirtualMachines create and distribute your BOINC client http://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/wiki/CompileApp BOINC server via Unix/Linux: visit http://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/wiki/ServerIntro visit http://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/wiki/SoftwarePrereqsUnix install any software prerequisites required by your system enable and test them visit http://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/wiki/SourceCode download Syncro SVN Client from http://www.syncrosvnclient.com/ install and run SSVN Client add two repositories to your Client: http://boinc.berkeley.edu/svn/trunk/boinc http://boinc.berkeley.edu/svn/trunk/boinc_samples create two folders on your computer (preferably with the same names) right click on each repository and select Export... complete the required steps to Export from the repositories to your local folders visit http://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/wiki/BuildSystem and build your BOINC server probably you will want to disable client when configuring visit http://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/wiki/CreateProjectOutline 57

for an overview of BOINC (perhaps this should have been done first ;) and this page helps: http://www.spy-hill.net/~myers/help/boinc/Create_Project.html good luck – I need it too! I'm “sorta stuck” at the point of trying to get php (a general purpose scripting language) to work with apache (a web server) and boinc-server (here on my Linux machine). I can install apache to work properly. But php does not seem to “work” here on this computer. Scripts are listed as code – not as functioning modules.. I've followed the installation instructions provided by php (to work with apache), but .. I've got a LOT more to learn or php simply won't work on this computer. I think it's the former ;) There are freeware SVN clients available on Linux which I have found since writing above. And (as written above) GP@home has been approved by sourceforge. But only a few people have joined the corresponding Yahoo group. Right now, I have two priorities that are more important: my new family – and – finishing and publishing this book. Please forgive the abrupt ending of this chapter.

58

14. Physics Frame-Dragging, the Key to Unification? Salvatore G. Micheal, Faraday Group, [email protected], 11/11/2007 Space as an elastic medium is investigated. Framedragging is reevaluated in that context. Two experiments are proposed: one to verify frame-dragging and the other to investigate the strain of space. Five theoretical research areas are proposed: the elasticity (and strain) of space, the origin of natural modes or preferences among elementary particles, the relationship between the strong force and gravity in that context, the explicit relationship between electromagnetism and this context, and the potential salvaging of electro-weak. Due to expansion of the Universe, space is under tension. When a particle mutually annihilates with its anti-counterpart, it's as if an ideal stretched string has been plucked – two photons / e-m waves are emitted in opposite directions. Of course, space has more qualities than just being under tension. It has permeability and permittivity. c2 = τ0/λ0 (1) p3 wave propagation rate squared is tension reduced by mass per unit length c2 = 1/μ0ε0 (2) p250 the speed of light squared is the inverse of permeability times permittivity => λ0 = τ0μ0ε0 (3) So, a mass is an element of space (per unit length) under tension (or internal pressure) subject to permeability and permittivity. Perceptive readers should notice (3) is a clever 59

rewrite of E = mc2. But it's more than that – it shows that masses are a product of the three and only three qualities of space – elasticity, permeability, and permitttivity: τ0 = Y(Δl/l) (4) p72 tension is linearly related to extension through Young's modulus under the elastic limit => λ0 = Y0μ0ε0(Δl/l) (5) (Page references are from Physics of Waves, Elmore and Heald, 1969, Dover.) Research needs to be performed to determine why there are three modes associated with protons, electrons, and neutrinos. Perhaps the three modes are associated with elasticity alone, combinations of each quality, or individually. First, Y0 needs to be defined/determined such that it is fixed for all elementary particles. Next, the following table needs to be “filled out” for each: Extension, Magnetic Moment, and Charge. Then, the table needs to be analyzed for any patterns. Clearly, experimental research needs to be performed in order to determine the first column. Critical readers will doubt/dismiss the connection between space and an ideal string (and the connection between space and elongation), but recent developments indicate the analogies have robust features. Previously, in the interest of conceptual minimalism, I rejected the plausibility of black-holes, framedragging, and gravity waves. But they actually reinforce the analogies above. Singularities could correspond to exceeding the elastic limit of space. Gravity waves could correspond to “elastic waves in an extended homogeneous isotropic medium”, p225. And frame-dragging could be evidence for both elasticity and impedance of space. If there's frame-dragging for massive spinning objects, then there's an analogous relativistic-wake for massive objects approaching the speed of light. The wake could be comprised 60

of a following expansion of space. It would seem this linear drag imposes the fundamental limit on speed. So the idea of space as a “frictionless track”, as many envision, becomes less plausible. What about time? Dilation implies lengthening periods or time-compression, so relativistic effects are consistent with those near strong gravity sources. Framedragging implies relativistic effects are real not virtual – as many have claimed. Frame-dragging implies there's a quality of space impeding masses – or – linking masses to space. Several years ago, I proposed that inertia is a manifestation of the extension/expansion, but I lacked the crucial insight provided by frame-dragging. In the original proposal, a moving mass produced a smeared expansion that lagged behind the mass. But frame-dragging implies the opposite is true: that space is stretched behind the leading edge of a moving mass. The former proposal was mass dependent: a larger mass produced a larger expansion and length-contraction was spatially uniform (in disagreement with reality). But the current proposal predicts length-contraction is unidirectional – colinear with line-of-flight – creating a “pancake” from any object. It's strictly speed dependent. The effect appears virtual because the object restores to normal once speed is restored to its rest-frame. Agreeing with that would be like saying time dilation and frame-dragging are virtual effects as well – which is erroneous – those effects have lasting consequences: a permanent and irreversible time-displacement – and – a permanent twist in space (as long as rotation is maintained). An interesting thought experiment would be to create a rotating mass which maximizes spatial twist (for simplicity, suppose we use the “north pole” of a spinning object as a reference point). Compare the four following objects, all of the same mass and composition, all with the axis of spin along the axis of 61

symmetry: a long thin rod, a cylinder, a sphere, and a disk. (The cylinder and sphere have the same circumference.) The challenge is to visualize the coupling between mass and space – and – the appropriate projection/vantage to solve the problem. If we think about the rod first, we realize that it produces the least twist at its north pole because the masscoupling near it is so small. The next smallest frame-dragger is the sphere – because its mass distribution, with respect to its north pole, is less than the cylinder of same diameter. Finally, we realize the “opposite” of the long thin rod, the large flat disk, is the “winner” in terms of frame-dragging. It's suggested the reader try the experiment with insulators and a small disk shaped test mass (also an insulator) placed at the north pole of each candidate mass. The reason for using insulators is to avoid any potential magnetic effects of conductors. Make sure you ground everything before spin-up; insulators can hold a static surface charge .. Two variations of the experiment above would be to repeat the scenario with conductors of similar density (similar to the insulators). Then mix them. The reason for choosing similar density material is to keep mass-coupling the same between same shaped objects. (So, run the experiment four times: one with insulators alone, one with conductors alone, one with insulator candidate masses and conductive test mass, and one with conductive candidate masses and insulator test mass. Make sure the conductors are not magnetized.) Back to Y0. The units of Y0 need to be newtons or newtonmeters (from (5); the LHS is in kg/m). Since newton-meters = joules, Y0 needs to be in newtons or joules (force or energy). Previously, I defined Y0 to be hc which is in units of joulemeters (not exactly what we're looking for). The only place to “borrow” units is from the extension. We could redefine extension to be extension/meter, but that would be artificial and somewhat equivalent to defining extension to be change-in62

length/area. Whatever we do in defining Y0 has to make sense physically (with respect to Y0 and the extension). The basic requirement on Y0 is that it needs to be fixed for all elementary particles. The basic requirement on the extension is that it needs to be measurable (if we think in terms of volume, it does not have to be unidirectional). If we go with ∆l/area, that could be like changing a radius of a circle – but that choice would have to be justified intuitively and physically. Any choice of Y0 and extension would have to be similarly justified. Let's discuss measuring the extension. (One way to think of the extension is the expansion of space due to the presence of mass, but this is missing the point of (5)! Mass IS the extension constrained by the three qualities of space.) Since we cannot make a spinning disk of protons, electrons, and neutrinos (individually) and measure the torque on a test-disk (exerted from frame-dragging), the best we can do presently is measure beam deflection of two nearly crossing beams of particles. (In making that first statement, I realized that in the heart of a cyclotron, one might be able to create “pseudo-disks” of electrons and protons – but measuring torque on a test-mass would become the issue – placing a sensor in the heart of a cyclotron is not an easy task!) In modeling the beam-crossing point and resulting deflections, we need to “subtract out” the electromagnetic interactions between sets of particles. I suggest varying the nearness of the crossing beams for each set of beams while keeping the angle between them fixed. I suggest: {electron, electron}, {electron, proton}, {electron, neutrino}, {proton, proton}, {proton, neutrino}, and {neutrino, neutrino} as sets. It would be nice to add sets with antiparticles, but dealing with neutrino beams is a formidable task in itself (to my knowledge, no one has created a neutrino beam yet). In any case, extracting the extension from measurements will require cleverness in perspective and experimental setup. 63

Again, back to Y0. After some contemplation, the choice of hc seems inappropriate and any efforts to “make it work” are “barking up the wrong tree”. In the RHS of (5), we've already “encoded” c in terms of its components: permeability and permittivity. So, it's already there in the equation (implicitly). Let's consider h, Planck's constant, alone. The units are fairly encouraging: joule-seconds. What about the intuitive meaning/relevancy? ħ, h/2π, is the fundamental unit of angular momentum. It's the magnitude of spin of photons and double that of protons/electrons. It's not a stretch of the imagination to describe ħ as the “energy of twist” of photons, protons, and electrons. But what is it twisting? Perhaps this is where framedragging reenters the scene. Perhaps ħ is a measure of the twist-energy in elementary particles – the “twist of space” that seems fundamental to elementary particles. If we can tentatively accept that masses are units of space under tension/pressure, then it is not a leap to say those elements possess twist – especially when we consider frame-dragging and the ubiquity of ħ. Many will dismiss this paper as “mere speculation”, but the approach above requires less “leap of faith” than required for the 11 dimensions of string theorists. We are so “wrapped up” in our models of the Universe that we cannot “see the forest for the trees”. A good example of this is the following. I'd bet it's fair to say that most physicists don't know about hydrogen in electrostatic equilibrium. They know about the equations and formula which describe behavior, but they don't have an intuitive sense of “what's going on”. The reason I say this is because they don't know the origin of the fine-structure constant, alpha. Alpha is simply the orbital speed (αc) of an electron in electrostatic equilibrium with the nucleus. Simulations are typically dismissed as they “offer useful approximations, but little direct understanding” (cover of 64

Turbulence, Coherent Structures, Dynamical Systems, and Symmetry, Holmes, Lumley, and Berkooz, Cambridge, 1996). But they can provide valuable insights such as above. The finite-element method is a numerical method typically employed to model stresses and strains of materials of specific geometries. Perhaps it can be used to model attributes of elementary particles and their interactions (from the perspective above). Insights garnered can be used to refine/“fix” the model above so that it completely reflects reality. For instance, a linear relationship between stress and strain is used because that's a convenient theoretical starting point – as it is for many physical systems. Around the same time as my look into inertia, I developed a unified function describing both gravity and the strong force (because they are both strictly attractive and can be thought of as originating from the extension alone). But theoretical work needs to be performed to derive G from quantum constants. Until that's done, any such function (while they may be interesting) will be arbitrary and artificial. Next, the fact the electromagnetic constants, permeability and permittivity, are “built in” (5) is conceptually nice, but Maxwell's equations need to be derived from (5) (or a variant of (5)) explicitly. Then, the theoretical unification between electro-weak “forces” needs to be reevaluated to determine if it fits the framework presented above. Admittedly, this “call to arms” is broad and demanding, but I believe the community is “up to” the task. It should be a collaborative effort. Even if I had the roadmap “divinely inspired”, planted in my mind, I believe it would be wrong of me just to hand it over to professionals. This blind alley (our obsession with the probabilistic-reduction approach) we find ourselves in needs to be self-corrected. 65

The approach above was inspired by an engineering perspective. It should not be discarded or dismissed but thoroughly investigated – even if it's only another blind alley. Physics is at a self-made impasse presently – made from our dogmatic adherence to assumptions associated with probability-reduction. If we realize that double-slit phenomena can be explained with a model of elementary particles as extended 3D waves constrained by qualities of space, this opens the door to a reasonable and fully deterministic Standard Model – unified and integrated.

66

15. Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome Ten days after my wife's birthday this year, while I was in New Zealand looking for work, we found out that she has HIV. We don't want pity. We don't want special treatment (meaning – we don't want anything special done for her). Of course, we will take advantage of treatment programs available in Thailand. And we are fortunate that a local university has a unique treatment program designed to reduce transmission rate from “mom” to “baby”. It happens to be experimental and free – which fits our budget. According to authoritative papers I've read online, without treatment, my wife has a life expectancy of about five years. From people she knew in her village, she confirmed that before I read it. With treatment, it could be twenty plus. Doctors she talked to confirmed that .. Typical of me, I created a Yahoo group called hiv_herbal_support, but of course, no one has joined.. There's another Yahoo group that I joined because I had read the book years ago: HIV_Does_Not_Cause_AIDS. The book was written by Dr. Peter Duesberg. When I read the book, I was in qualified agreement with the author – he made a case for his point. But.. But.. I cannot force my wife to follow his advice on the chance he's wrong. In any case, it's her life. If she wants treatment, that's her choice. If she does not, again – her choice. I agree, just like the war in Iraq, “HIV causing AIDS” has become a political discussion. We promote some idea because we want government backing/financing. I don't, but many people do. If I don't make a penny off this book, I don't care. All I want to do is open people's minds about issues that became important to me – after I noticed the relevance. 67

I love my wife. She's my life. And I must confess that I was a little disappointed that I did not test HIV-positive. Why? Because I'm a romantic: I wanted us to “go out together”. Make sense? I do want to take care of her “until the end” – I will take care of her. (She just called me – very sweet ;) Sigh.. My point above is that you must make your own judgment about HIV and AIDS. If a treatment program can reduce the risk of HIV transmission, from mother to baby, from 25% to less than 1%, don't you think that's worth investigating? I'd be curious, from a scientific viewpoint, to see how long I'd last without treatment – if I tested HIV+. Get good rest, eat healthy, and exercise .. how long would I last? ;)

68

16. The Importance of Love and Family Would you go to jail for your son? (If he committed a crime and was found guilty?) Would you die with your wife? (If she had some fatal disease?) You might be surprised how many people action “yes” and how many people action “no”. Human beings are incredibly selfish creatures. But they can also be incredibly giving creatures – to those they truly love and care about. Ask your wife or girlfriend “Honey, if I had a fatal disease and had only one year to live, would you spend that last year with me?” An old girlfriend of mine answered “no”. Wow. I was flabbergasted. I could not believe my ears. That showed me – how unimportant I was in her life. Another old girlfriend told me “I would die with you” (implying – if we had some fatal disease together). But I doubt her words “rang true with her soul” (that she could actually do that). She could not face her mother with me (tell her mother I was her boyfriend). How could she face death with me? True love endures all things. It does not excuse all things. But true love can forgive any wrong. If a father goes to jail for his son, he does not do so – approving of his son's wrongdoing. He does so because he loves his son .. If I die from HIV, it's not because I like/love/approve the man who gave my wife HIV – what he did was wrong (knowingly or unknowingly) – it's because I love my wife – and want to have a “normal” life with her – as normal as we can. It's not because I want to die and shirk my responsibilities. It's because I belong beside my wife “'till the end”. I am her husband – in the truest and deepest sense of the word. I belong to her. And if she dies, I die. 69

17. The Discipline of Prayer Prayer may not have the power people wish it does. There may not be some all-compassionate divinity “looking down” over us – listening to every private secret desire we have. But, I believe there is power in prayer itself. The potential of the human mind and heart is limitless. And if we focus on some prayer repeatedly – with all of our heart, in this process – we discipline ourselves – to focus on the important things in life. We bring into our awareness – what we care about. And I believe it strengthens our resolve and commitment. Impulsive prayer is short-term “quick fix”. It does not address the “whys” of our existence. Why do we need this or that? Why do we want her or him? To satisfy our ego? Or some transient passion? Be careful what you pray for – you just might get what you asked for. Disciplined prayer focuses our awareness on what we consider important – and it prioritizes things. When we continually focus our minds and hearts – on what we think is important to us, we realize (where things might have been subconscious before) what is truly important to us. We discard things (in our minds) that are trivial to us. If I pray for a particular lover – to satisfy my lust – because her body has some shape that appeals to me – or her nose is sexy, imagine how chaotic my life would be? Every sexy girl I might see would be in my prayers – and if those prayers are answered to the satisfaction of the whim, we might share some short intense passion, but what about my wife? Does that not say to her “go ahead – find any lover you casually desire”? And more importantly – what about her feelings? Does not this process 70

prove that I don't care about her at all? That my own lusts and desires are much more important than her? Before I met my wife, I made many mistakes. I was with other ladies for all the wrong reasons: insecurity, loneliness, fear of loneliness.. I also had some inclination, some desire, that I thought I could help them. But no matter how noble the inclination, if you don't marry for the right reasons, you're doomed to unhappiness. For me, the only two “right reasons” to marry someone are: true love and children. Previous to my wife, when I was with another lady, I would continually fantasize about another woman. What I'm trying to say is – finally I found someone who can keep both my heart and eyes. I don't need other ladies. I don't need the fantasy of another woman to keep me going. My wife is everything to me – she is my life. She is enough for me. (Way more than enough.;) What I'm trying to say, in a roundabout way, is that repeated focused thoughts and desires can be like prayer. And a person can waste much of their life on “prayers” that cannot be satisfied. Try to imagine how many years I wasted in the trap/cycle of fantasizing about another woman. True, it was a much needed escape my mind created. But it was a drug-like “fix” more than anything else. What a horrific waste of my life. My wife and I have debated the concept of meeting sooner, but even if destiny allowed, would we be ready? In the path of my life, didn't I have to make the mistakes I made so I could be a good husband for her? And same for her? Truly, she has taught me how to be a good husband but.. Would I be ready for her had I met her sooner? 71

Please God, help me be a good husband for my wife. Help me provide for her and our babies as best I can. Help me keep her lasting happiness and fulfillment – number one in my life, heart, and mind. Please protect her; keep her safe for me. Please help me protect and take care of her – to the best of my abilities.

72

18. Three Distributed Computing Projects In my computer's “spare time” (when I'm not using it – or even now – as I type), there are three computer programs running “in the background” (while I use a word-processor, the “load” on the CPU, the central processing unit, is low – so other things can use the CPU without slowing things down noticeably). The main controlling program is of course BOINC, but three programs I chose, because I think they're important, run – processing data provided by the host servers. Those host servers have corresponding websites which are: climateprediction.net, einstein.phys.uwm.edu, and www.worldcommunitygrid.org climateprediction is a British site devoted to understanding changes in the world climate due to greenhouse gas emissions – humans have caused in the last century. The models are increasingly sophisticated and accurate (one way to check accuracy is to run the models backwards in time – comparing with known history). Simulation, when properly applied, is an extremely powerful tool for understanding dynamical systems. The key phrase is “when properly applied” which means: an appropriate math model is developed and continually checked for accuracy and precision. Accuracy is “closeness to true” values your model provides. Precision is the amount of error your model will always have (every measurement has error and every model is incomplete – in the sense it's a simplification of a real-world system). The more sophisticated your model is, the more parameters you have to “tune” (adjust) to run your model accurately and precisely. The model is usually a set of differential equations put in numerical form so that they can be implemented in a computer program. Time is “incremented” as “delta-t” which can be a nanosecond or millennium – depending on the time-scale of your simulation. This choice is 73

extremely important in your simulation and must be justified so that others, examining your model, will understand the applicability. Of course, related to climateprediction and other BOINC projects, all these considerations are hidden from the end-user. While you're running those programs, you need not be concerned with accuracy, precision, and delta-t. The previous brief discussion is for those interested in implementing their own math models on computers – or – for those interested in how things work. Einstein@Home is a project about detecting gravity waves. It's fairly important in physics and should be examined if you have any interest at all in that area. Because physics is somewhat stalled in progress, various projects have critical impact on current development: Einstein@Home, Gravity Probe-B, the LHC at CERN, and various projects looking for proton decay. The latter projects are not computer simulations – they are real (and expensive) equipment located around the world. In fact, Einstein@Home is not a simulation either – it's a “data processing” project with huge amounts of information requiring “filtering” (looking for candidate signals in noise). WCG, the world community grid, is the host for several distributed computing projects including FightAIDS@Home. You can choose which projects to support and run on your home computer. I have chosen that project for (what should be) obvious reasons.

74

19. The Year 2012 Riley thinks the year 2012 will be the year when “the shit hits the fan”. Several people agree with him. A dear family friend thinks we deserve it – that we deserve to be hit – and hit hard. I have a tendency to agree with her. But no amount of doomsaying will make the end-of-the-world happen in 2012. How many times have we heard this? First it was 1996 (because Jesus was actually born in 4 BC – making that 2000 years later), then it was 2000, then it was 2001,.. So the Mayan calendar ends in 2012 – so what? Does that imply the Mayans were ecological prophets? I don't think so.. My wife is extremely level-headed and laughs whenever I mention Riley. If she's right and Riley's wrong, that makes him a clever con-man preying on the fears of others. The atrocities he talks about in his book – that we've done to each other and the Earth (which are real) – are the “bait”. And the symbols he sells (tickets to the mothership) – are the “hook”. There's no hell fit for the perpetrators of those aforementioned atrocities – just as there's no hell fit for Riley – if he's the con-man some say he is. Personally, I would like an end to the bullshit – whether it's from our deceptive leaders (and the conspiracy guys who love to weave stories about them) – or – people like Riley who mean well, but are like parasites on society. I think the date is a little farther out anyways – something more like 2050. So let's make this chapter about the desire for an end to social parasites – whether they be doom-sayers or presidents. Wow, how appropriate is that? ;) Bush tells us to be afraid of Iraq and North Korea and uses (and sells) a lot of weapons in the process. He uses fear to control and mobilize people. Why are people so stupid??? Wake up America! Pull your head out 75

of your ass and wake the fuck up! (Oops, I'm doing it again – ranting and raving;) If I was Bush (I would explode – just a silly joke), I would go to North Korea and talk with Kim Jung Il. I would get a feel for what he wants and expects from America. Then I would talk about what we could reasonably provide. Then I would “lay down” some expectations for them (since so many people seem concerned about de-nuclearizing North Korea). If they don't comply, “we nuke your ass!” (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) I'm obviously very against using nuclear weapons in combat or “defense” – I feel every nation should be free to develop nuclear weapons for defense – and if they use them aggressively, that pretty much “deletes themselves from the game” – in my viewpoint. I would never be elected president because of my “nuclear policy” (and also because of my attitude towards genetics). My way to “disarm” would be to hand out all nukes to all nations – evenly distribute them. At some point, there might be a limited exchange of detonations, but I sincerely doubt it would be the “end of the world”. I can't believe we'd be that stupid. What I find revolting about the current situation is that the US feels empowered to dictate to the rest of the world – who can develop nukes – and who cannot. The fact we used two atomic weapons against Japan shows we cannot be trusted with that much power. And since the UN is the puppet of the US, they can't be trusted as well. Even if we did destroy ourselves in some nuclear holocaust, that would simply prove we hadn't earned the right to survive (that we didn't possess the right combination of traits enabling survival). It may sound very bleak, but I believe somehow – life would find a way to continue. Perhaps a better solution to the nuclear issue is to dismantle all American nuclear weapons – and turn over all 76

materials to science for research. Surely, the missiles could be used to launch peaceful payloads into orbit. Nasa and other space ventures need launch capability. We could do a lot of good with those resources (the plutonium in the warheads could be used in nuclear reactors, the tritium could be used in fusion research, and the missiles themselves could be used as above). If Americans dismantled, that would show a powerful “good faith” move on our part. Perhaps others would follow suit. If they didn't immediately, eventually they would. Trust is the most powerful message; trust is the most precious gift. ..It is left to the reader to envision different realistic “death throe” scenarios – those that are probable for our dying Earth. One idea is given at the end of the next chapter..

77

20. Holistic Gardening When a baby grows inside his/her mom, does he/she give anything back to her? Technically speaking, they're parasitic because they don't. Thank God most mothers don't feel this way. E. coli, a bacteria in our intestines, is not parasitic because it helps our digestion. In the process, it gains nutrients – therefore, it's symbiotic. I've been told this kind of relationship is fairly uncommon in nature. It's unfortunate because humans like examples before they emulate behavior. A negative way to view a marriage is with the label “co-dependency”. A more positive label is symbiotic. Farmers typically “fix” the soil with nitrogen producers in a procedure called crop rotation – each season they plant something different because some crops are heavy nutrient users (such as corn). If you did your “homework” in chapter 11, you decided on aqua-culture or soil techniques and completed a design for a human supporting ecosystem. Hopefully, you did not choose a synthetic fertilizer based ecology (since you should have recycled human wastes and those fertilizers end up killing the soil of helpful organisms therefore requiring more and more each year). Whatever you decided, you may be able to use part of that design in this and the next chapter. That is the third and last devoted to helping you learn how to apply the systems approach. This chapter is the second, so “fire up” your imagination and get ready your research skills. A friend well versed in systems principles has researched what I call “intensive horticulture” which is the clever placement of various species to reinforce each other so that growth and consumable products are increased remarkably. His name is Hugh Lewis and he has placed much on the web to help educate people about systems and holism. You can find his research and publications by searching on his name. 78

The core of the holistic home is the human family dwelling there but so is the garden – depending on your perspective. The garden is where all the nutrients they need – are “built”. So use a scaled-down version of your lunar base support ecosystem to feed your family in this chapter. Include any animals that you judge manageable. Of course, this garden is on Earth, so you don't have to worry about oxygen recycling (let's hope it stays that way). (One of the 2012 “death throe” scenarios is that our ozone could be destroyed – allowing too much UV to the surface – killing the phytoplankton in the oceans – which are the major oxygen producers on the planet.) You will use the garden design in your “dream house” - which you will design next chapter.

79

21. The Holistic Home I'm hoping this will be the funnest chapter in the book. It's best I only give you ideas by sharing my own plus list out some concepts you can research: composting toilets, grey-water recycling, passive solar (such as used in northern Michigan), Stirling engines, “swamp coolers” (used in arid hot zones), wind turbines (expensive!), electric solar (getting cheaper!), and straw-bale homes. Depending on location, I've oscillated between three designs which seem to recur in my mind: the triangular “castle” which is all cinder-block, two floors, six rooms, and flat-roofed (so that is usable); the underground house which is covered by a meter of soil, only has one side facing south, is basically a half-cylinder of corrugated zinccoated steel, and has a basement full of rocks and boulders which acts as a heat-sink to heat in Winter and cool in Summer; and the “mushroom” house which is basically made from 2-by4s and steel straps, it is an elevated ellipsoid – a squashed sphere with two floors and eight rooms, inside the trunk/stem is the lift or outside is a spiral staircase, the ellipsoid frame is geodesic, and windows are all around. Maybe your dream house is in the side of a cliff or under water. Maybe it floats in the air like a helium dirigible! I've tried to design a “mile high” building with a triangular base and flattened top – much like a spear-point, but wind-shear seems to be the major issue. The design would have to be flexible – like a reed blowing in the wind, but it would make people sick! There are buildings which use a counter-weight – to compensate for wind-shear, but these would have to be massive (and tied to remote senses which anticipated events)! It should be “easy” with the systems approach. In these types of structures, it should be clear that backup systems are essential. 80

As with chapter 11, please submit your design to my email in pdf format. Again, I will post those interesting and authentic designs on an appropriate website. If you have any other questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me via email. As you know, I will be very busy taking care of my new family, but will try to find time for genuine concerns. The following is a kind of epilogue. There should be a chapter about world government, but I'm an advocate of pure democracy. There should be a chapter about space ventures such as Xprize and Mars Society, but there seems to be a lack of cooperation between them. There should be a chapter about aircraft design (since I want to build and fly them), but I'd rather do than talk. There should be a chapter about matrices and systems theory, but there are many resources for that. There should be less blabbering and swearing in this book, but I prefer a conversational tone and sometimes – things must be stated for what they are. I apologize for any seeming inconsistencies. Sometimes I use words to convey a special meaning that is not standard (an idiom unique to me) or adjust the meaning of a word to say something different, but I try to highlight those with quotes or explanations. In much of the book I adopt a defensive posture because in much of my life – various people attacked me and my values (many were supposedly “friends” but were not) or mocked or ridiculed me. This is standard for American life where competition is so highly valued (where even your values must show, at least a potential for, profit). But I refuse to raise my son in a place where “smoking in the bathroom” (sex and peer pressure for sex and drugs) is standard, where the word “respect” exists (in the dictionary) – but no one understands the true meaning, where we make a mockery of the word “freedom”, and where truth, trust, and justice are similarly disenfranchised. (An English teacher will tell you – you cannot 81

use a word like that but you can use words any way you want – as long as your meaning is clear.)

82

22. Utopia-Town ..This chapter is my response to consumerism – the religion and way of life of the modern age. I have a revulsion for it – about as intense as my revulsion for competition. We must have that car, that brand, that thing or person – in order to be “cool”. That relentless compulsion to be cool, that incessant and insipid tendency to throw away things and people we tire of (the trademark of our “disposable society”), and our absorption into the media – these kill us spiritually. They do it by destroying our individuality. We are drones in a nest controlled by the “hive mind”. And that “mind” (or mindlessness) is controlled by corporations and government. They use our debt and desires to control us. We feel free when we spend money, but quit your job and see how long that feeling lasts.. As a young man, I tried to design “the perfect town”: energy and consumable independent – with a net surplus – to pay for taxes and external resources when required. This “utopic community” would satisfy every need for each member: shelter, food, education.. And those it did not satisfy – create a net surplus so that they could be acquired from the “outside world” when needed. My motivation was Plato's Republic and my dissatisfaction with it: the hierarchical structure and the “fundamental lie” required by Plato .. No matter how merit-based Easterners think Western society is, our society is ultimately and implicitly hierarchical. I am a “grunt” (part of the worker-class) and will always be a grunt in the elites' eyes. “Fuck you!” and “May you curse yourselves with your own egocentrism!” I say to those. 83

Anyways, “my town” has at least six doctors (one plus backup for every shift), six nurses, enough teachers for all the town children so that classes are less than thirteen students each, two or three architects/engineers specializing in green construction, the same for interior designers (part of the surplus mentioned above could be in the form of services these designers and engineers provide for the “outside world”), a few research scientists with a small laboratory (this lab would serve a dual purpose – to design symbiotic gardens and research ways to fight disease vectors that invade our community – and to produce designs and engineered species for the “outside world”), two construction crews, a few maintenance technicians, and enough farmers to create a surplus of foodstuffs for the community – for “hard years” (those with drought or pestilence). Every family, regardless of occupation, would “own” the same quality home, eat the same quality foods, and recreate in the same facilities. A farmer is just as important as a scientist – maybe more so. A construction worker is just as important as a teacher. Since the doctors and engineers are “more special”, they can eat special foods and have sex with whomever they want (this is a very small joke aimed at the egos of doctors and engineers – please forgive me). The point here is about collaboration: everyone in the town needs to work together – not order each other around. The spirit of the town is understood if you thoroughly digest this chapter. The town would have to be initially constructed by loan, grant, or philanthropic donation. Invitations for community members would be sent out across the globe. Initial membership should be competitive (please forgive the use of that “dirty word”; decided by consensus) based on genuine explicit tolerance, curiosity, creativity, compassion, the capacities for trust and respect – and of course – a lasting commitment to the town. 84

My paranoia suggests the elite of this world would try to sabotage such a town. There is no reason for them to support it. The town would be purposefully financially independent. No credit cards or money would be needed there – by members. The town would make the elite of this world – obsolete. It would be a symbolic threat to them and I suppose they would do everything to avoid its completion and very existence. Please don't let them win. Don't let them sabotage it. ..Readers are invited to join the following Yahoo group dedicated to Utopia-Town: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/utopia-town/ Maybe we can generate enough interest within the group to make recruitment unnecessary. But there will still be the task of financing.. For the future of humankind, please build the town. Make it green. Make it a lasting testament to Hope, Faith, and Trust in the best of us. Make it for our children. Make it with Love.

85

Addendum 1: Old Chapter on Physics I “wasted” several years on a project which falls into the category called “unification physics” – culminating in several books and papers which are basically ignored, unknown, and considered fringe by convention. A dear associate of mine declared that I have marginalized myself but I contend “it takes two to tango”. I disagree with the “giants” of physics who have declared that we cannot comprehend quantum behavior. We can retrain our intuitions to reflect reality. Unfortunately, physics has “gone down a path that leads nowhere”. For five basic reasons, physics has been lead astray. One is that a branch of modern proponents dogmatically pushed their “inherent indeterminism” philosophy onto the rest (including Einstein). These early modernists essentially used peer pressure to make the rest feel like “idiots” if they did not subscribe to their philosophy. Later, some experiments were misinterpreted which seemed to confirm the perspective. These supposedly disproved “local realism” (the model of reality that asserts even quantum behavior can be understood and modeled deterministically). Then, Richard Feynman (considered the most brilliant physicist since Einstein) “closed the door” on determinism by developing his path-integral formulation of quantum mechanics. This gave him the authority to promote indeterminism in the form of virtual particles and space-time foam. The Higgs boson (yet to be detected) is the “manifestation” of the “crutch” modern physics uses to “keep it all together”. And finally, the Casimir effect seems to confirm it all by measuring the “vacuum force”. (Please forgive the following extremely opinionated digression. To me, there's good science – like the design and intention of Gravity Probe86

B. And there's bad science – like the data-analysis (better called data-manipulation) of the same project. Another good example of bad science are the “freeloaders” pretending to “do” science around the Casimir effect. The first thing that should catch your attention is the effect is only visible with metallic plates (conductors). And repulsion is observed with insulators. That should be a red-flag in your eyes that something else is going on. Those that swallow indeterminism “hook, line, and sinker” accept Casimir as “proof” of indeterminism. It seems to me the politics of science and funding issues are really what's “going on here”. They're grasping at straws. They sense they're on a sinking ship and desperate to find “progress”. And it's not just about money – there's a lot of ego tied into these issues. Imagine the embarrassment of professors and researchers who have endorsed concepts for years – some basing their entire careers on them – only to find out they were all wrong! That's why I think they'll never embrace determinism. Again, these are only my opinions. Let's return to the discussion.) The real culprit to blame is not Richard Feynman – or even those early modernists. It is our infamous “friend” reduction – who is to blame. The philosophy of reduction permeates science and engineering to such an extent – that we automatically think the universe operates on this principle – from large to small. For each “force” of nature, we have devised a “force carrying particle”: strong/gluon, weak / vector boson, gravity/graviton, and electromagnetic/photon. Unfortunately, for “science” (how can you call it science when it does not operate scientifically?), these particles are undetectable directly (with exception of the photon). And the reason I put force in quotes above is because three of four are not even legitimate unique forces! 87

Let's start with gravity. It is not a force per-se because it is curved space-time. The weak “force” is not because it is simply unstable nuclei – our naïve attempt to blame a particular culprit – is just that. And the strong “force” is merely the close-range version of gravity. The fact we have “unified” electromagnetism with the weak “force” into “electro-weak” is a testament to our ingenuity – not a reflection of reality. ..Of course, the problem in physics is more than just a sequence of misunderstandings and philosophical bent toward reduction. It is the revulsion of determinism and all its “consequences” which impel physicists to embrace inherent indeterminism / the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. Physicists are human and have a natural desire for freewill. This desire is deep in the psyche. So when a physicist hears the word “determinism”, it evokes all kinds of negative connotations: the “clockwork universe”, no choice, slavery, meaninglessness, “living death”,.. I exaggerate, but the point is made: physicists cannot even listen to a deterministic idea – it's revolting to them – a backwards step in the “evolution” of physics .. But it's silly – determinism can exhibit its own “brands” of “randomness”: chaotic systems / strange attractors, complexity, and unknowable internal phase. There's no need to “build in” randomness at the quantum level to have a universe with freewill. The push toward many-worlds and multiple dimensions is not fundamentally required – in terms of human needs – and to explain quantum behavior.. Perhaps indeed – electrons are “multi-state” entities under certain conditions. Or perhaps we're observing multiple states over a combinatorial range of possibilities. Electrons in orbitals certainly behave differently than electrons in conductors. This baffling behavior coupled with the sequence of historical events listed above has placed modern physics in the position 88

of a blind man who's trying to navigate down an unfamiliar alley by sense of touch. It's extremely unfortunate that so many brilliant minds have been deluded into wasting lifetimes – pondering and researching ways to support a theory that's essentially incorrect. In a very roundabout way, modern physics has approached a fair model of elementary particles. Indeed, they are much like vibrating closed-loop strings. But we don't need eleven dimensions to model their attributes and behavior. If we allow two features of space: impedance and elasticity, we can explain most (if not all) of particle behavior. Of course, the fundamental questions: why does space have these two qualities? And why is the mass ratio of proton/electron the value we measure? – remain still unanswered. The last hundred years has been exciting for physics – it seems – one “fundamental” discovery after another. I believe the next hundred will be just as exciting. ..In my book on physics, I predicted no detection of framedragging – but at least two independent studies indicate the effect is real. If there is frame-dragging for a massive spinning object, then there is an analogous relativistic-wake for massive objects approaching the speed of light. The wake could be comprised of a leading compression and following expansion of space. It would seem this linear drag imposes the fundamental limit on speed. So the idea of space as a “frictionless track”, as many envision, becomes less plausible. What about time? The automatic conception of dilation seems hasty especially if there is a following expansion or turbulence (an expansion would be associated with time speeding up or vice versa unless space and time are disparate – the opposite we've been “preaching” for a century). If we've detected framedragging, the many years of “fighting/rejecting the aether” may 89

have been in vain. Frame-dragging implies there's something in space impeding masses – or – linking masses to space.. The reason for this chapter is an attempt to inspire others to search for answers to those questions – answers that jive with reality – within testable theories using observable models. (One reason I don't give physicists any slack is because they are more like a “priesthood of mysteries” than scientists. They dogmatically adhere to one perspective, such as their interpretation of the double-slit experiment, rather than performing a comprehensive scientific investigation – such as using different materials for the slit or controlling the phase of targeting electrons.)

90

Addendum 2: A Second Paper on Physics A New View of Gravity – A Distributed Compression of Time Salvatore G. Micheal, Faraday Group, [email protected], 11/17/2007 Y0, the elasticity of space, is defined and calculated. Linear strain is calculated for electrons and protons. In the process, after a few assumptions, a new relation between temporal curvature and spatial curvature is established. Needed work is reviewed. From the previous paper on frame-dragging, we invented a new relation between mass and the linear strain of space: λ0 = Y0μ0ε0(Δl/l) (1) mass per unit length (implicit) is linearly related to extension through the three parameters of space: elasticity, permeability, and permittivity We had some trouble defining an appropriate Y0, the elasticity of space. Recall that the basic constraint on Y0 is that it must be consistent between elementary particles (and of course its units must agree with the equation above). Let's make a few standard assumptions which should not cause too much of a ruckus. Of course, those must be verified (or at least – not disproved) – as the consequences of those assumptions must also be verified. Until now, we have not made the 'per unit length' explicit. Let's do that and assign the Planck-length: λ0/lP = Y0μ0ε0(Δl/l) (2) This is a place to start and we'll follow a similar convention when the need arises. Let's replace lambda with the standard notation and move lP to the other side: m0 = (Y0lP)μ0ε0(Δl/l) (3) Multiply by unity (where tP is the Planck-time): 91

m0 = (Y0lPtP)μ0ε0(Δl/ltP) (4) Now, the first factor on the RHS is 'where we want it' (units are in joule-seconds). And, the fact we had to 'contort' the extension by dividing it by the Planck-time should not prove insurmountable to deal with later. Finally, let's assume the first factor is equal to the magnitude of spin of electrons and protons, ħ/2: m0 = (ħ/2)μ0ε0(Δl/ltP) (5) By our last assumption, Y0 = ħ/2lPtP ≈ 6.0526*1043 N. To simplify and isolate the extension: m0 = (ħ/2c2)(Δl/l)(1/tP) (6) => (Δl/l) = (2c2tP/ħ)m0 = 2(tP/ħ)E0 (7) So, the linear strain of space due to internal stress is directly related to rest-energy through a Planck-measure. Later, if space allows (pun intended), we will show that (7) reduces to an even simpler form involving only two factors. If our assumptions hold, the numerical values for (7), for electrons and protons respectively, are approximately: 8.3700*10-23 and 1.5368*10-19. The values are dimensionless – per the definition of linear strain. The meaning is: 'locally', space is expanded (linearly) by the fractions above (assumed in each dimension). What exactly locally means – will have to be addressed later. The numerical value of Y0 is extremely high as expected. All this says is: space is extremely inelastic. The numerical values for ∆l/l will have to be investigated – perhaps as suggested in the previous paper. Let's deal with our assumptions first. The notions of Plancktime and Planck-length are associated with 'minimum measures' conventionally. Anything less is considered physically meaningless. If there is a fundamental limit on our precision in measuring things, we consider those to be lower bounds. If we could make a 'meter stick' with a length of the 92

Planck-length or a clock that 'ticked' per Planck-time, that would be the limit of our technology – physically imposed by the nature of our Universe. So, to use them above is not a huge stretch of our 'belief system'. Our first assumption, to employ 'mass per Planck-length', is not implying we assume electron masses are actually divided into small parts of m0/lP. It simply means that's the limit of our measuring ability – and that we associate a linear change in space (for now) with that minimum measure. Conventionally, we think of m0, E0, ħ, c, and tP as fixed. If any of them varied, that would throw physics into chaos, right? But that is exactly what quantum mechanics has tried to cope with since inception: the seemingly statistical variation of m0/E0 about some modal value. Fortunately for science, ħ and c do not seem to vary statistically. The fact we had to introduce tP above in order to simplify the expression for extension, is only the completion of another expression of uncertainty. That's the conventional view. Another perspective is to view that change in space per unit time. There are two further ways to view that: as the propagation of the gravity wave of a newly minted particle – or – as the locally changing extension over time. If we tentatively adopt the latter view, this provides a natural/integrated explanation of uncertainty. The only 'problem' is that the linear increase in extension cannot go on forever. It must necessarily oscillate. The simplest form of modeling that is with a sawtooth wave (and slope ±∆l/l). We could get a little 'fancier' and model with a sinusoid. The critical factors are: amplitude and wavelength. Amplitude is associated with the variation in restmass/energy. Wavelength is associated with the choice of period: Planck-time, de Broglie 'period', Compton-period, or relativistic-period? The first appears too small (and arbitrary), 93

the second is not properly defined for particles at rest, the third does not account for relativistic effects, so we are left with the fourth. The fourth is based on the third but takes into account time-dilation. For consistency with relativistic-mass, relativistic-energy is defined as: E = ħω = E0/γ (8) where omega is the relativistic-angular-frequency and gamma = sqrt(1-(v/c)2). For consistency with time-dilation, relativisticperiod must be lengthened: T = T0/γ (9) where T0 is the Compton-period of a particle at rest. Let's repeat equation seven here for convenience: (Δl/l) = (2c2tP/ħ)m0 = 2(tP/ħ)E0 (7) If we notice that heavier particles have larger extensions (comparing protons and electrons), we can replace every variable above with its relativistic counterpart (let's also give the extension a new name, X): X = (2c2tP/ħ)m = 2(tP/ħ)E (10) But because of (8), (10) can be rewritten: X = 2tPω = 4πtP/Tγ2 (11) relativistic-extension is two times the Planck-time times relativistic-angular-frequency which is also equal to the ratio of Planck-time to relativistic-period through a solid angle! (gamma-squared is a scaling factor from the relation ν≡1/Tγ2.) For particles at rest, (11) reduces to: X0 = 4πtP/T0 (12) extension is the ratio of Planck-time to period through a solid angle You can't get much more intuitive and simpler than that! One way to think of gravity is as curved space. Another way to think of gravity is as curved time (only). An object in a circular 94

orbit (around Earth) is following a 'straight line' path (of least action) through curved space – or – is following a path of same temporal curvature. An object in free-fall is following a straight-line path to the maximum of spatial curvature – or – is following a path to the maximum of temporal curvature. Gravity can be analyzed exclusively as a distributed compression of time. (All trajectories can be treated as a linear combination of those two orthogonal trajectories. They are fundamentally different in terms of temporal curvature. All extended objects experience a gradient on different parts of their extension – it’s not just the ‘steepness of the hill’ which pulls them down. In the same way, time is infinitesimally slower on the ‘low side’ of an object in orbit. Objects move to maximize time-dilation.) The analysis above has shown that, with a few assumptions, there’s an equivalence between spatial and temporal curvatures. So, another way of looking at particles is as: charged twists of space and localized compressions of time. What 'local' means still needs to be defined (not in a tautological way) precisely. A preference needs to be established – in viewing curvature – such that characteristics of space-time (such as Maxwell's relations) are more easily exhibited. Those characteristics need to be derived from (1). The other theoretical tasks need to be performed (set in the previous paper). The two experiments from the previous paper need to be performed. If there is indeed a deterministic oscillation in mass/energy/extension, that needs to be experimentally verified. A small joke was forgotten to be placed in the previous paper: “Don't cross the beams .. Never cross the beams!” ;) 95

Addendum 3: A Third Paper on Physics A New Uncertainty Relation for Conventional Physics Salvatore G. Micheal, Faraday Group, [email protected], 11/19/2007 A new uncertainty relation is derived with the following parameters: extension of space (linear strain), time, and Planck-time. An argument on its fundamental nature and meaning is presented. Two related aether theories are discussed. For those unable to divorce themselves from probability (or those unable to tolerate even a trial separation), the following train of thought was doggedly pursued to its 'brilliant conclusion' .. Near the end of the previous paper on temporal curvature, a relation between the extension of space (a crude measure of spatial curvature due to the presence of mass) and a measure of temporal curvature was developed: X = 4π(tP/T) (1) where subscripts are omitted for clarity; extension is the ratio of Planck-time over period through a solid angle One expression of conventional uncertainty is: ∆ω∆t ≥ ½ (2) uncertainty in angular-frequency times uncertainty in time is greater than or equal to one-half With a little algebraic manipulation, this can be rewritten: 4π(∆t/∆T) ≥ 1 (3) Notice the form of (3) is almost the same as (1)! Now, let's examine things from a conventional perspective. Since extension is directly related to energy, there's some uncertainty associated with it: ∆X = ∆[4π(tP/T)] (4) = 4π(tP/∆T) (5) 96

=> ∆X∆t/tP = 4π(∆t/∆T) (6) => ∆X∆t/tP ≥ 1 (7) => ∆X∆t ≥ tP (8) uncertainty in spatial extension due to presence of mass times uncertainty in time is greater than or equal to Planck-time Planck-time is the lower-bound for uncertainties in space-strain and time. The purpose of this paper is not to 'bend to convention' – but to present things in a way that is acceptable to convention so that the previous papers (and any subsequent) are not rejected out of hand. The author prefers deterministic and non-reduction (holistic) views of quantum behavior. I say this not out of ego but sentiment similar to Einstein and De Broglie: our lack of full understanding forces us to employ statistical/probability analysis. Then we further justify that by unequivocally stating measurable entities have some inherent uncertainties associated with them. Of course there are errors associated with every measurement; of course there are always limits on our precision. The author does not argue against fundamental limits on time and space. It is the source of those limits that I question; it is the source of those 'inherent uncertainties' that I need to understand. I have a natural tendency to view things in terms of electric and magnetic flux because those can easily be visualized. Even if a time-varying 3D vector field is required, again, that can easily be visualized. In physical systems – energy form, location, and flow – are critical to understanding them. I have a natural tendency to attempt to visualize that also. But when there are gaps in our understanding, there are gaps in the visualizations which automatically beg to be filled. 97

Gravity can be visualized in the approach above. Even exchange of virtual particles and space-time foam can be visualized. But that does not validate them. It should be clear why quantum electrodynamics / quantum field theory is distasteful to me. You cannot question the math, but you can question the assumptions and techniques. In the first place, it's not a holistic approach. It wasn't invented to explain gravity or unify forces. The over-dependency on virtual particles is the second major issue. Take that away and what are you left with? A lattice of arcane math with questionable applicability. What is the source of uncertainty in (8)? Is it space-time foam or some inherent uncertainty? Is that uncertainty based on some probability density function (which is truly random – the conventional approach) or on some internal oscillation? Let's examine relation (1) again: X = 4π(tP/T) (1) Let's rewrite it in terms of Planck-time: XT/4π = tP (9) ∆X∆T/4π = tP from (5) ∆X∆t ≥ tP (8) Convention would reject the second line as meaningless without a ≥ symbol. They might accept uncertainty in extension being inversely proportional to uncertainty in period, but they would see the statement as incomplete without the conventional relation (we are 'born, bred, and raised' to acknowledge a lower bound on uncertainty). Convention might find the first line interesting but not ascribe any deep meaning to it. I doubt they would see the relationship between temporal and spatial curvatures – even if a conventionalist had derived and presented the equation. They would focus on the assumption of internal oscillation and reject any conclusions based on that. After all, we did not precisely define uncertainty in energy: 'Amplitude is associated with the variation in rest98

mass/energy.' Even if we did precisely define it (we might make an attempt later), there is the issue of validation. In any case, the physics 'atmosphere' is extremely hostile toward determinism and any aether-like associated proposals (a few will be discussed below). The third line is important to convention – if they want to unify gravity with electromagnetism (with or without quantum field theory and virtual particles). I'm certain that it can be derived within the conventional framework. I'm certain that it holds fundamental importance. A dear associate of mine, Mayeul Arminjon, has developed a model of space as a 'super-fluid ether'. It's intriguing, but space behaves more like a highly elastic solid with 'strain bubbles' as 'matter waves' (G S Sandhu). But even he misses the mark in a way: he defines elasticity to be 1/ε0 (with corresponding inertial constant μ0). This allows him to derive Maxwell's equations by correspondence of form (correspondence to stress equations). That's a bit contrived to me. If he had started with a mechanical definition of elasticity (such as in the previous paper) and derived Maxwell from that, I'd find him more believable. He also 'disproves' the primary postulates of special and general relativity thereby rejecting both theories – only later to state 'at higher velocities and corresponding high energy interactions, adequate study and analysis of the associated phenomenon can only be made by using the techniques of special theory of relativity and Wave Mechanics.' (p25, Elastic Continuum Theory of Electromagnetic Field & Strain Bubbles), so he's a little inconsistent and tautological. Perhaps some of his ideas can be salvaged and incorporated into an integrated model of space-time and elementary particles – without tautology and inconsistency. 99

Relation (8) will be dismissed because it was derived with unconventional assumptions. But the associated insights are profound and far reaching. If there's an equivalence between spatial and temporal curvatures, gravity can be analyzed exclusively as a distributed temporal distortion, energy can be stored there, and this opens the door to a fully unified and integrated model of space-time and elementary particles.

100