Origin, By Glyn Jones

Origin A Commentary on Existence, by Glyn Jones © Copyright 2009 Glyn A. Jones Edited by Frater Pyramidatus In the beginning it is believed two forces of equal yet individual size collided, matter and antimatter. This theory is commonly called ‘The Big Bang’. It is also widely known that in the cold recesses of space we have a vacuum, effectively, rendering any potential sound obsolete. A rational proposition would be to suggest that the start of the universe was a silent affair because of this vacuum. Let’s consider there was an initial sound that ran parallel to the Big Bang. If the universe is infinite then I propose that the sound first caused would have been on a tremendously furious scale. The sound vibrations and pitch would have possibly devastated or destroyed any stars or planets that would have been initially created. The universe is believed to be infinite because it is continually expanding. The further away a galaxy is the faster it is moving. If the Big Bang is still in effect then I suggest that more galactic phenomena such as stars, planets, quasars and black holes etc. are still being created beyond the reaches of humanity’s most powerful telescopes. If this is the case then I think there is a destruction trail at play in the universe. We know that all stars eventually burn out of fuel. So to deduce further, depending on time parameters, there maybe a trail of dead stars that one day may catch up with our own sun. Without the abundant light the sun provides events would kill off the forestry on earth which needs light to accumulate and provide oxygen. This is obviously needed in order to sustain the growth and development of life on planet Earth, and other worlds probably. If the universe is not creating any new stars or planets etc. in its expansion, then what’s next? All stars eventually deplete their fuel, which may render most if not all elements to cease on every planet feeding from its allocated star. The evolution of life may die out as life cannot sustain itself without such elements. The universe would devolve into dead space, void of life anywhere throughout any of the galaxies. Eternal darkness would encapsulate and reign forever. Einstein raised the probability of equal and exact opposites. The beginning of the universe's contrast is action and reaction of duality, embraced into single unity. We can deduce this to be matter and antimatter reacting. Action could also be viewed as a substance whether it represents a solid form, or is freed up from a physical compound. So by this rationale we can ascertain reaction is antimatter. My theory suggests that antimatter destroys all things over time whether living creations or inanimate objects. The majority of matter supports itself until antimatter eventually corrupts it. Whether it

be due to erosion, abrasion, decomposition or death etc.. To break down this theory of action and reaction to its simple truth is to know that the known universe is abundant in contrast. Einstein basically proved the power of opposites. To understand Einstein's theory from a philosophical view would be to quote the proverb: "There's always two sides to a story". The Big Bang theory of a binding truth of universal representation to its common denominating fact is based on the actuality of the ever expanding cosmos. Which may lead to the conclusion of equally exact yet opposing forces, i.e. matter and antimatter reaction. The driving force behind the theory must be examined also. The Big Bang is, of course, action entwined with reaction. For two opposing forces to collide to represent a future form of duality entwinement their needs to be "Pre-force". Dictating that matter and antimatter collided in the beginning to create the universe in which we inhabit today. The question of the big bang theory is this: "Where did the Pre-force come from to join these two states of equal individuality?". A conclusion is that before Pre-force there was a stronger, or equal, force of the same or perhaps an opposite to trigger purpose. My deduction leads me to the understanding of the irrelevance of time. There is no ‘I in we’. Meaning, we have always been and we will continue to be if the universe is infinite. To quote Einstein, "There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity and I'm not too sure about the former." What was Einstein trying to say here? Was it to prove his acclaimed genius and laugh in the face of humanity's ignorance, or was it simply to raise the question of the universe being infinite, because everything has an opposite? So what is the opposite to infinity? If this question baffles you then allow me to provoke another undeniable curiosity. "For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction." To the clear minded who embrace this fact, then I ask, what is the opposite of middle? My reasoning leads me to believe that the opposite of ‘middle’ is the ‘outside’. Which is in two parts, left and right; which when rotated provides another duality of north and south. As you have noticed these are two separate entities which negate Einstein's theory of everything having only one equal opposite. Symmetry of duality is here akin to the Big Bang of polarized and exact opposites. It is regarded that the universe is infinite. If you accept this as fact then everything is the centre point (middle) of the universe. This in turn renders the Big Bang into eternity of always being in existence, and not that of being created. The drifting space continuum of the ever expanding universe may be reacting this way because of galactic magnetism. This is to say that the two opposites repel one another. Due to ‘life propagating death’ with death being the apex of calculating change, from its original point of being. Meaning they are not tolerant of each other, so they repel. The planetary land mass drifts apart from its former jigsaw formation every year by

approximately 2cm. This fact leads me to think that the world's land mass is gyrating where eventually it will collide. Knowing that the continents separate 2cm every year and will eventually touch back on its self, before the sun has depleted all its natural fuel, is in keeping with the planet spinning on its axis. In conclusion I propagate the theory of duality of gyration for the earth. Also, the planets in our solar system move along their trajectory path in a circular motion. Earth and the solar system represent gyration to an extent. Which maybe enacting some part of a memory program from its creator, in this case the universe. Which poses the question of the universe having a gyration effect, i.e. a circle of infinity? If true then maybe beyond the encasement of the universe's duality of single unity is the element of Pre-force. An infinite element of sustaining life that is beyond the ever corrupting force of antimatter. Atoms are a chain reaction of connectivity. All the several sub-atoms are joined as one binding principle, the smallest of which being a quark. What does this mean? Everything is connected through atoms. Here’s an example. Let’s pretend your neighbour is eating dinner, whilst you are out working late, is watching a live reality TV show of contestants scaling trees to see who can reach the top first. The undeniable fact here is the connection of individuality through the unseen atom. What does this idea represent to you? To me it says that the prejudicially justified hypocrisy of those who spread an image to their peers of decency and dignity, whilst contradicting their very actions are atomically linked, with those who would abhor the lies of pretentiousness, to those who would honour it. In an infinite universe one idea represents an undeniable truth, which is that whilst we are all individually connected we are all the centre point of the cosmos. My own philosophy to understand this theory of individual connective centre is this: “We live within the universe and the universe lives within us”. Do you believe in divine existence? You may be asking yourself what this has to do with binary code. Here is a simple mathematical equation (1>0) with a significant truth for understanding the universe. Allow me to continue. Let’s for argument’s sake rule out God’s existence and assume that the universe is born from chaos. So before the Big Bang there was nothing. We take that pre universal state and represent it with the numerical value of 0. The 0 is also a sign of infinity as I’m sure you’re aware, as is the mathematical symbol of ∞. We deduce that 0 now means infinity of nothingness of the pre-universal state. We know the universe exists because we think in it and evolve. This leads our species to contemplate the environments in which we are continually adapting. Since the universe in its current form is the opposite to the aforementioned theory of pre-universal nothingness state, we shall bestow the numerical value 1. At this point we should be of the understanding that 0 = nothing (pre-universal state) and 1 = something (current form of the universe).

In mathematics one golden rule that is taught is that you cannot get something from nothing, or the impossibility of perpetual motion – except in the universe itself. If we have five apples and we are in a generous mood we could give away three apples, or all five. If we haven’t any apples to begin with, we cannot give any away, let alone as much as we may want to. So my question is this… If the two primary forces of the universe’s creation, matter and antimatter, were spawned from nothingness 0, then why is the very existence of the universe (something = 1) in its current form at all? You can’t get something (universe = 1) from nothing (pre Big Bang = 0). If this theory is incorrect then it begs the question, how do you get something from nothing? If death is the end and the universe is infinite then how do we get an end in infinity? We live within God and God lives within us! One question that has intrigued man is also one that is elusive. The question is: what happens when you breach the speed of light? Before we get to this theory let’s examine sound. Sound travels at 600mph (Mach 1) and when the speed integrity is surpassed it generates a sonic boom. This noise is the speed of sound being broken or distorted. By this rationale we understand that the breach of sound triggers a forced action, known as a sonic boom. I think it is logical to deduce from this fact that the same must happen to light when breached. It must trigger a forced response. My theory is this. When light is overtaken we reach a state similar to the breaking of sound, Mach 1. The name I personally adopt for this state of light distortion is ‘portal’. I believe that when light is broken it separates away from itself leaving behind a null and void space portal to infinite dimensions. What is reality? It is a commonly held belief that reality is apparent and real due to emotions and the ability to think within our environment. Some believe reality is made real due to all sorts of grief whether stress, paranoia, anxiety or physical pain etc.. I believe that the only binding principle which makes this realm more real than dreamscape is the notion of continuity. When we are tired and drift off to sleep we are suspended in a plane which is usually void of all the stresses and strains of reality. The dream world is more often than not abstract. I believe the plane of our dream world is our subconscious playing out unfinished business from reality. Some of the questions and actions that go unresolved in reality appear in our dreams for us to decipher the meaning and make sense of our state of being. The main assumption behind reality being the driving force of consciousness is continuity. When we awake from sleep we are usually, for a brief moment, in a state of recollection, which I have called ‘total recall’. On the threshold of arising we have total recollection of the most significant parts of our individual history. There is a certain continuity that binds our individual and collective conscious memory into a state of apparent clear thinking.

If there was any continuity in dreamscape of starting the current dream from where the previous left off, what would make the dream plane less real than reality? Continuity binds the active mind of consciousness into a sense of reality. There is seldom continuity binding the subconscious mind of dreamscape together. I concur that reality is only more real than dreamscape in humanity’s eyes due to its continual links to society’s binding individual and collective consciousness of continuity. Darwin invoked into the scientific world the actuality of change in the species from its original point; leading to the notion of a similarity found in the conscious mind that is one of change. The evolution of propagation intention, the desire to reproduce, is the adapting to circumstance, whether to a mental state, human interaction or the need to change and learn to adapt within the environment in which we are unknowingly placed. According to Darwin’s calculation, evolution does not simply occur overnight. My understanding of Darwin’s theory of evolution is to conclude that, whatever form being the creation of life in a biological state in the beginning of life on earth is the waypoint, or the start of life’s subconscious desire to adapt. Darwin proposed the origin of the human species from the descent of a primate. Take the starting point of man in its Darwinian state. The bipedal primate eventually evolved into the homo sapiens. At some point along the evolutionary chain there had to have been a change in the DNA of primordial man to reach the homo sapiens state. Let’s take that initial transformation of the primate and pretend we have seen ten years pass since the beginning of man’s evolution. We’ll call this time difference ‘origin’. Now let’s pretend we have gone into the future from our present day by ten years. Is it safe to say that we’re not witnessing the occurrence of ‘origin’ in today’s DNA of primates? If not, why not? Something was triggered, or released, in man to adapt into a life form, so in future years man could ultimately control the environment in which they have found themselves placed. Which would make sense of the birth of humanity’s achievements in discoveries such as medicine, technology, science, philosophy and religion etc.. Establishing a trigger, or a release point, of adaptation in man, compels the question: “Where is the same evolving trigger or release in primates which is absent in the present DNA of the aforesaid primate?” The conclusion of man descending from primates is a plausible one given the similarities in appearance and DNA structures. Yet to truly believe this as a binding earthly law is an anomaly. When I look at the big cat family group and propose a theory of tigers evolving from lions, some may disagree believing that the big cat family evolved from the Sabre Tooth. If this is the case then why would Mother Nature evolve into so many different distinguishable breeds of big cats and not just one type of evolved cat to make better use of the future environment? If the free thinking world would deny such a ludicrous proposition of tigers spawning from lions etc., then why would logic propose the birth of humanity by the way of our primate relatives? The birth place of man must have been Africa, or somewhere as equally warm, due to the

fact that man enters this world naked. If man had been born in a cold climate it begs the question: “Would they have outwitted their harsh bitterly cold environment and adapted quickly to realise the appliance of material would trap the body’s heat between the skin and fabric?” If they realised this immediately then we must take in time parameters of evolution and that the mind changed and adapted to this environment quickly. Which negates the process of biological evolution being a slow process, when in fact biological and mental evolution are inextricably linked. Let’s take a starting point on the Earth for man somewhere warm which instigates the theory above. Allow me to deduce that Africa is the birth place of man near the equator. In this climate man would have been dark skinned and man’s quest for knowledge would be to adapt and learn about the undeniable fact in which they have found themselves, existence. As man made discoveries along the trail of exploration that pushed north, ultimately, bearing further away from the equator leading to cooler climates. Which leads us to the understanding of skin colour in cooler climates. They would have turned a lighter colour due to lack of sunny rays browning the pigment in the skin. This idea suggests that evolution of race in all its varieties of colour and shade, that all humans have today, came from the sun initially. The only remaining question here is to tie up the logical evolution of race, coming from the sun, is the most mysterious shape of Oriental and Eskimo eyes. The only theory I can conclude is that of humidity. This is to say that the evolution of Oriental eyes comes from a baking humid heat which in direct contact causes the eyes to open and close rapidly. Eskimo eye fluctuation maybe caused by the opposite to stale humidity, one which is bitterly cold and harsh. The similarity here is the opposite values of a thermometer scale bearing the same duality of adaptation.