Pymander

Please excuse me, and also, please continue along those lines. Do consider the material evidence compiled as "The Gospel of Thomas", and its implications concerning the fabrication of a Jesus myth by Rome. The Wiki article has pictures of the scripts, discusses relevant dating, and so forth. Consider also the Burning of Rome by Nero, successor to Caligula, successor to Tiberius, contemporary with Jesus. Who did Nero throw to the lions as his scape goat? This may reinitiate your derailed discussion along more congenial lines. Have fun.

"If I am not a witness, it may be a lie, if I am, my serotonin levels may have become unbalanced, or someone has slipped lysergic acid diethylamide into my coffee." Is that the basis of your "proper test"? Then "I think, therefore I am" becomes "The observer is the only reality", fairly profound. Was Woodrow Wilson's "No man is that good a liar" disqualified thus? Are we in the matrix, or at "Recall". Did the past somehow become disqualified, upon the above criteria, so that none of our previous discussion transpired? Escaping such Aristotelian constraints, the assertion you have repeated, without further consideration (or should I say, comprehension): "...every proper test of "mysticism" has shown that it doesn't work." is a BLATANT LIE to usurp authority, which King James did NOT, following advice from "The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli. Every proper test that has worked has been disavowed, and short of the absurd definition of "proper" above, there are records of this in "There Is A River", and more in the post-requisite non 'Textbook', again by design, "Memoires Of A Seer". As for a scientific experiment to determine such using arbitrary individuals as subjects, this will also prove that no-one can ride a one-wheeled bike on a tight-rope". The clairvoyance your like disaffirm is a gift of The Most High to the worthy who will not abuse such powers. To use them to force unbelievers against their desire is disallowed. Acquire some relevant knowledge before you shoot your mouth off, and please do not claim that such does not exist. That again is BS, the mire that (ignorant) pigs wallow in, and the vomit that (greedy) dogs consume a over and over and over again (The Sermon on The Mount, Matthew 5, 6 & 7, specifically, 7:6). Her you will find contradictions - with some orthodoxies, NOT internally nor with the rest of scripture, properly interpreted. Read carefully, try to understand, examine your beliefs more critically, follow the leads, and decide for YOURSELF. You best president did, and ended, instead of started, a World War.

Psychic information must be checked out for validity. There are many frauds. You are skirting this requirement entirely on the basis of prejudice. (Deuteronomy 18:19 - 22) I am sure some will check out the sources given, but do you think they will be willing to discuss it here, after such inane responses? Please return to the discussion I have derailed. That had value, from the more palatable material angle, at least. Know this; those who do not accept truth as a friend, must face it as a conqueror. That is personified by the goddess (angel, nether, spirit, power) Kali by some who are not blindly proud.

I am at a serious disadvantage here, as having been disallowed pasting material. Would any of you be game to overturn this imposition. Especially if I am to play Jesus against the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Herodians all at once. I am not Him. Here, then, if we are playing chess, are three mystics I do not find myself at variance with. Edgar Cayce you already know of, whose works reside with the Association of Research and Enlightenment (A.R.E) in Virginia.. Patience Worth (or the works attributed to this ghost writer through a St. Louis housewife Pearl Lenora Curran) and kept by the Missouri Historical Society. The most surprising will be Grigori Yefimovich Rasputin, a healer who died in the lead up to the fall of the Tzars of Russia. To be fair we perhaps should ignore the political revisions of history, as Cayce often exposed, and read the biography left by his daughter. I am sure that the diligent researchers among you will rise to the occasion. These were not 2000 years ago. They all happened about the time of the atheistic paradigm shift of the scientific fraternity. They fulfil a prophecy by the prophet Daniel 500 BC Chapters 11 & 12, of the help offered by the Archangel Michael to the living (symbolic as believers in God, as opposed to the dead). What you will read will easily fit computers and the internet (a god of forces, and a god his fathers knew not), and the atomic bomb (abomination of desolation, quoted by Jesus Matthew 24:15). The hecklers are welcome to research them as more recent supernatural occurrences, again for purposes of directing mankind, and rescuing him from joining the 'dead', a thoroughly dismal state of mind, and misdirection of purposes, in my opinion. Or they can go on enjoying their 'freedom'. I do thank you for the opportunity to address the 'living' on this forum.

I can continue to dissect you misconstructions of my statements: "Do you realise that Atlantis never rose; not in '68 and '69 or at any other time?" If you are speed reading, you are getting half of it. At least you missed the word "portions" and its identification of a part of Poseidia. Now, expert, take the trouble to Google "The mystery of the Bimini Road". What do you see, and how easily are qualifications passed out in the USA, if your ability to research matters before you form an opinion is so dwarfed? National Geographic has published an article on the "Bahamas Blue Holes". So try "National Geographic Bahamas Blue Holes". Do you see stalagmites and stalactites? Does your chemistry explain their formation from Calcium Hydrogen Carbonate, by the evaporation of the water from this unstable compound? So how did they form under sea water, my learned friend?

The sufficient condition you speak of, chemistry expert, is beyond us. While we may satisfy the requirement of consistency, evidence may arise that is inconsistent with your thus established knowledge. Our concept of reality may need to change. Our hypotheses, the bases of our theories, may be incorrect, and these hypotheses seen to be drawn from insufficient evidence. Since the imperialist Aristotle challenged the mystic Plato's history of Atlantis, support for that history has steadily increased, but consistently denied by the Aristocracy, and resultant public prejudice. Theories concerning the Great Pyramid of Egypt are continually dashed. Claims like its Post Ice Age (The Flood) origins are blatant shams, like that of the politician who shot to fame and fortune faking Khufu's involvement. His "evidence" holds water like a sieve. And as if you have not had enough of me, cop this. My research into this very mystery lead to Mark Lehner's work, an Egyptologist also not prepared to bend the knee to public or political pressure. His "The Egyptian Heritage - based on the Edgar Cayce Readings" fulfils Cayce's own prophecy quoted therein: "This, then, is the purpose for the record and the meaning to be interpreted by those that have come and do come as the teachers of the various periods, in the experience of this present position, of the activity of the spheres, of the earth." 5748-5. It may be relevant here that I have received qualifications to teach secondary mathematics and computing, and left in disgust, because of the political use of education. Mathematics I could teach without requiring more than a syllabus, which turned out to be extensively eroded since the "brain drain" that nearly caused a revolution (Simon & Garfuncle - "Silent Night", intellectual ferment caused the French Revolution by all accounts). The resultant brainwash has been quick. Now, in the light of the current "scientific" paradigm, incorporating the sell out of psychology regarding psychic powers: "And Poseidia will be among the first portions of Atlantis to rise again. Expect it in sixty-eight and sixty-nine ('68 and '69); not so far away!" 958-3. This reading was given 10 MAY 1932, and its prophetic fulfilment is now history, as was Atlantis, submerged with its knowledge due oppression, translated out of ancient Greek at Oxford by Benjamin Jowett, 1817 - 1893, before the Paradigm shift of "Science" to atheism. EVIDENCE IGNORED DUE CONFLICT WITH HYPOTHESES OR INABILITY TO EXPLAIN IS CONTRADICTION AND DECEIT. Gospel sized reports of witnesses never agree in all matters, upon which the hecklers rest their case. This is especially true as the cited is little more than a sample of EDGAR CAYCE'S PSYCHIC POWERS. This is an encyclopaedia sized psychic report by one man with his eyes shut, explaining the bible, history, evolution, the occult, science, and the hardest of all, mankind. And through 40 years he was being cross-examined, without apparent contradictions. What right do you have to make the demands you do? Forum rules? Are they in the interest of advancing science as truth? Am I breaking any in Religion, or are you perhaps out of place. Hopefully, this is not just a smug elitist version of Facebook! It has much to offer humanity, or I would not be here. Were you to read Mark Lehner's "The Egyptian Heritage", your task of believing such things as Christ's rising from the dead would only be made worse. I believed it because I had first studied EA Wallis Budge's guarded academic works on Egypt first. There is no contradiction, rather, we have an explanation of the Great Pyramid from this remarkable source, which is almost absent from credible Egyptology, but for a vague allusion in Chapter LXIV of the Book of the Dead (a poor translation of "The Book of Manifestations in the Light", downloadable as PDF). Its near total absence sent me to research leading to Edgar Cayce.

'"Mainstream IS argument from authority," No, it's based on evidence.' Are you the authority who has presented the evidence and the analysis thereof. Then you are presenting an argument from authority. You also place yourself in the position of deciding who is and who is not to be regarded as an authority. So: 'Feel free to present some' is sheer hypocrisy. 'However that's not really the point. People put forward non-mainstream ideas here. A "mainstream" idea in religion is a silly idea. There are simply too many dissenting opinions.' The dissention and its sources I had covered. Is has been reiterated because some seem to have missed it. The fact that the father of calculus, mechanics and the equations of motion of the planets was a mystic, and the father of special and general relativity likewise, that is not authority enough over the authors of "mainstream", who to my mind were their students, (like Aristotle was to Plato), yet you are ranking them how? So that my argument from authority is inferior to your thinly disguised argument from authority? This is BS, smells like BS, and is as reliable as the ideas that come from the psylocibin you can get using BS. Before you have an opinion, you need all the evidence, not an arbitrary selection. "The Official Edgar Cayce Readings" can be purchased on a 2 DVD-Rom. Albert Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" may be downloaded as a PDF. The Bible KJV may be downloaded likewise. These three form a consistent body of knowledge, in my opinion, and I have studied the last two in their entirety, and used the Cayce Readings to form a consistent interpretation of the scripture, if perhaps too profound for the uneducated or the disinterested. Besides all else, scripture is for everyone young and old, and it can not be the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Its meaning increases as one "grows in the faith", which I interpret to mean our individual knowledge and wisdom. This mission may encompass many lives through many worlds. Thus, religion is way beyond science as we know it today. "There is a River" by Thomas Sugrue is a biography of Edgar Cayce 1877 - 1945. Many books have been written using the 86.3 MB of readings he produced over 40 years. Before the bomb, E=mc^2, and the true nature of scientific space and time became public knowledge, on 19 JUN 1941, a reading gave this: "Remember, as given, the earth is that speck, that part of creation where souls projected themselves into matter, and thus brought that conscious awareness of themselves entertaining the ability of creating without those forces of the spirit of truth. "Hence that which has been indicated - that serpent, that satan, that power manifested by entities that, created as the cooperative influence, through will separated themselves. "As this came about, it was necessary for their own awareness in the spheres of activity, that realms of systems came into being; as vast as the power of thought in attempting to understand infinity, or to comprehend that there is no space or time. "Yet time AND space, in patience, you may comprehend." Reading 5755-2 The only guarantee of truth we may have is that all our beliefs are consistent, nothing more. Thus, it is a pragmatic growing attribute of mind and soul. Falsehood creates anomalies we must resolve. Wisdom is the knowledge of God. Read John Chapter 3, through to the end, where John the Baptist speaks of Jesus. Note much here may be misunderstood, even "born again", when compared with Job Chapter 1, "Naked came I from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither." This is the transliteration of the original Hebrew, and what Nicodemus wanted to understand.

"So it is a group of anonymous authors contradicting each other." Exactly. Thank you. Good to see common sense, and not the kind AE was talking about when he said "Common sense is that layer of prejudice laid down in the human mind before the age of eighteen". This common sense does not proceed from modern bureaucratic left hemisphere dominated "cover your butt" self serving sycophantic defensive minds. Einstein didn't care about being ridiculed, departing the confines of respectable science dismissing absolute time and space. THAT IS SCIENCE, not science "falsely so called" (1 Timothy 6:20 KJV). The Edgar Cayce quote above, detailing the source of the gospels, gave one source of contradiction - Lucius was presenting second hand reports, but from sources like the Essene community at Carmel, he had much to offer besides - the childhood of "Jesus" (Jeshua ben Joseph). The second source has also been given, much is metaphorical, symbolic, alchemaical, poetic, words with much the same meaning. Such analogy is longer translatable out of Shakespeare's English of the KJV version. This requires training the right hemisphere, a skill bible reading develops and is academically disdained, to our confusion, and subsequent thraldom. As a matter of interest, 1 Timothy 6:16 virtually states the fundamental premise of Special Relativity, especially if combined with 1 John 1:5. Aristotle denied ancient wisdom. Chose for yourself (2 Peter 3:5). If what is referred to as evidence, by some, were the basis of courtroom truth and justice, the foundation of liberty, our jails would be empty, but not as a good thing.

Quicksand is too good a word for what you are sinking in, ex-spurt.

"Yes we have standards, you read them and signed up to them when you joined this site. "They are the site's rules and, among other things they don't approve of argument by authority, proof by loud assertion, or other logical fallacies" Mainstream IS argument from authority, it has specific human authors whom other authorities control. Pounding Big Bang, and denying any universal and absolute power by any name IS loud assertion. "I have... blah blah blah" will do me for a logical fallacy and the other sins as well. Ignoring anything that requires God, Allah, Amen, I AM THAT I AM, etc functionally identifiable by "Ye are Gods and all of you children of the MOST HIGH" (Psalm 82, quoted to like hypocrites by the advanced soul sent as a witness to the truth, we English speakers call Jesus, read it and weep) is your only standard, and far from truth. Do you deny David existed also. What other history explains the Jews? Are they evidence. Do they not control the "free" world according to prophecy handed Abraham? If you did read Psalm 82, written in the time of David by Asaph (the same soul if Micah 5:2 is so interpreted, and Psalms 110 explained, which in Matthew 22:41 the hypocrites could not do), it would be the first time forum sycophants have actually looked at VERY MUCH LOUD EVIDENCE I have alluded to. In fact, where you have a problem with me is that I have studied sciences which is plain, and am also a mystic, a stance that does not suit the imperialistic mind. As for Freud, he and Jung fell out over astrology and much more, because it did not serve the agenda of the "Aristocracy". Thus, anything which requires GOD by any other name, psychics, astrology, prophecy, etc, is not just ignored but loudly ridiculed. Some of this is for the infantile hecklers. The rest is for the benefit of those whose faith they test, and will be thoroughly beyond the competency of sheep with no real shepherd to comprehend. Scripture uses analogy, which would be deemed illogical and unscientific, no doubt. And yes, this information uses Edgar Cayce as a source, an authority which, through much study, I have come to trust. No man is that good a liar.

Do you really even have a standard? And now you are the authority, to pass such a judgement. Yet nothing enlightening has yet proceeded concerning my input but unsupported denials. On what basis? Darwin, Hubble and Freud, back when mankind veered into World War I, maybe? Let's hear something that a parrot couldn't say.

"I have studied it, and you have not." to quote another. And your authorities are better? Or did you manage to generate your own not very unique set of cloned prejudices all by yourself? JC, EC & AE were in no way anyone's shill, or about anything but the truth, the only foundation that is not quicksand. Yet Aristotle's lies stand, and aliens did all the unattributed work around the planet...without leaving any bones behind before they moved on. That I do not believe. Since the Supernova created our dust, one third of the time was spent solidifying our planet around a star, and life can traverse that kind of space through cosmic rays? Two thirds made us a vehicle that could fashion an axe, the Egyptian hieroglyph for a god. The same creative spirit = consciousness made, or is, the force and its laws. And yet, you can not prove that the universe has an existence independent of our own. Does Einstein's Relativity not consider all things from the point of view of an observer? Is anything physical quantity defined without reference to an observer? SCIENCE DOES NOT HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS, AND PERHAPS QUITE AN ASSORTMENT OF INCORRECT ONES TO BOOT. Remember, knowledge is (material) power. Who finances education? And for what? Is there advantage to be had binding, instead of loosing knowledge? What do we really know? What do we want to know? These last are not unrelated questions. Men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil, and the light maketh it manifest. JC.

So Woodrow Wilson and Albert Einstein were also flatulating butt heads? You are standing firmly on quicksand.

The history of the church can be downloaded as PDF, "The Great Controversy" by Ellen G White. It is good history, but the appendixed eschatology is at variance with Edgar Cayce's output, particularly with the distinctions, now arbitrarily redrawn since the reformation, and the release of the Bible out of Latin. Alchemaical symbolism is variously taken as literal and vice versa. This creates variations in the faith. Some portions may be both, representing both history and metaphor. As for the questions of a controversial nature: Proverbs 18:1 Through desire a man, having separated himself, seeketh and intermeddleth with all wisdom. Matthew 5:18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfil. Matthew 5:19 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. "If the words of the prophets of old, and the teachings of Jesus Christ, were purged of all additions, especially those of the priests, they would represent a philosophy capable of curing all the social ills of humanity." Albert Einstein.

The best source for this kind of information is the Edgar Cayce Readings, about 20 times the amount of text comprising the King James Bible plus Apocrypha. Woodrow Wilson consulted Edgar Cayce to produce the Fourteen Points that settled the First World War, and prevent further global conflict. World War II and the Cuban Missile Crisis were a direct result of ignoring this "idealism", which is all history. Asked whether Edgar Cayce was for real, Woodrow said "No man is that good a liar." From those readings we have this: "MARK was first dictated, greatly by Peter; and this in those periods just before Peter was carried to Rome. "The next was MATTHEW, written by the one whose name it bears - AS for SPECIFIC reasons - to those who were scattered into the upper portions of Palestine and through Laodicea. This was written something like thirty three to four years later than MARK; and while this body - that wrote same - was in exile. "LUKE was written by Lucius, rather than Luke; though a companion with Luke during those activities of Paul; and written, of course, unto those of the faith under the Roman INFLUENCE - not to the Roman peoples but to the provinces ruled BY the Romans! and it was from those sources that the very changes were made, as to the differences in that given by MARK and MATTHEW. "JOHN was written by several; not by the John who was the beloved, but the John who REPRESENTED or who was the scribe FOR John the beloved; and - as much of same - was written much later. Portions of it were written at different times and combined some fifty years after the Crucifixion."

Quotes like John 5:31, taken out of context, are like E=mc^2 quite meaningless to someone who has not studied Einstein's work, and much that predates it. At least completing the thought presented to John 5:47 does it some justice, like understanding the derivation of relativistic kinetic energy. Unfortunately again, references are made to the Moses from back in Exodus, so that without having studied the whole subject (in this case the Bible), such references are again meaningless, as to someone who never studied mathematics. The comparison with another such quote, then, becomes ludicrous. I use science here as an illustration because its simplicity makes an easily understandable analogy. Let me remind you that, when Isaac Newton was questioned by Halley "Sir Isaac, how can someone as learned as you, believe such foolishness as astrology?" he was given "Because Sir, I have studied it, and you have not." It would be safe to say that Woodrow Wilson was an unusually well educated politician, not relying on rhetoric with no idea what he was talking about, to paraphrase Cyndi Lauper's "You Don't Know". He said "Anyone who has read the Bible will know that it is God's word." The 200AD and 400AD "sayings of Jesus", found in canopic jars and put in print as "The Gospel of Thomas" puts paid to any rhetoric concerning the fabrication of a Jesus myth, and without His presence, "An Outline of History", by, believe it or not, H. G. Wells, would have left a great deal unexplained otherwise. I could go on, but that's a start.

I've said what I wanted to say for anyone interested and with the resources to investigate it. Special Relativity explains magnetic fields as imbalance fluxes due to relative space contraction, and relates the permittivity constant to the permeability constant and the speed of light. Maxwell suspected it intuitively, and Einstein's work has proven it. In a similar fashion, General Relativity may do the same for gravitational fields and the Gravitational constant, explain inertia's relationship to the universe as a whole, and as Electromagnetic radiation evolved an opinion, its understanding is obviously incomplete in explaining materialisation into matter and antimatter. Acceleration of charged particles in oscillating or circular motion may also be contributing a 'gravitational' component to EM. I do not see how this can be simply denied as a fact, but I have not yet seen this course of investigation materialise as science. If I have a valid insight here, great. If not, that's okay too. It's an idea. Thank you again for responding. I guess further discussion must be left to the experts. Ta ta.

Wow. The real problem is that I do know a great deal about 'modern' physics by most standards but am too diverse in my interests to become narrowly focused & highly specialised. Much of it seems counter-intuitive to my mind, and probably for that reason. I believe that the electrostatic force is the only one in existence, that light is not really understood, neither is the singularity, or gravity/inertia itself, which I believe is a dipole, that the neutrino makes no sense at all as a player in a designed universe (refer Fred Hoyle for instance) and the rest of my last two posts have raised questions that are most certainly not answered. As for the "obviously", it is based on highly questionably substantiated conjecture at best, since Albert Einstein passed on. Incidentally, you may remember that the antiproton was not discovered until 1955, and his monopole gravity misconception could easily been voided had he lived past that date, and completed the unified field theory that I am presently about finding a basis for. I do not deny that the mathematics is beyond me. We are talking about a courtroom where so many lies have been flung about that the jury is reeling. How is everyone so sure each and every hypothesis is ironclad? and there are many! If any number are incorrect, we are seriously diverted. The Geocentric universe had only one. For instance, without even accepting design at all, how is "asymmetric matter-antimatter reactions" even reasonable, in the face of so much identity. On this premise, we must defend the Big Bang! Look at the evidence! The antimatter reactions differ in a part of the universe where forces are reversed. Matter and antimatter must separate upon materialisation from energy in extremely rarefied condition, and segregate long before galaxies can form. Of course statistics will differ under the circumstances. This is just grasping at straws to maintain credence.

A proton and an antiproton combine into a pair of composite particles and lose mass. They become (presumably) gamma rays. More likely they become a gamma ray and its antiparticle, a neutrino of energy even beyond that of the Tau neutrino. But what is solved by maintaining that photons (and possibly antiphotons) create quarks in the exact number and type to create electrons or protons (and their antiparticles, always in exactly the same numbers), rather than just forming the only stable particles known to physics, directly? More to the point, how is this achieved, either way? It seems to me that the real issues here are only being obscured, rather than being explained. Is it possible that relativistic effects alone are entirely responsible for converting electric forces into magnetic and gravitational forces, and that these interact to produce all the phenomena of the universe? In chemistry these alone create the elements and all their properties. It could be that the same types of laws apply at the subatomic level also. A deuterium nucleus may well be two protons covalently bonded by a shared ultra high energy electron likewise. All the other nuclei, the neutron, and everything up to the Higgs Boson, may be nothing more than electrons, protons, their antiparticles, and the required energy the create them; by supplying electrons and positrons with sufficient energy to form the necessary bonds. This seems to answer more questions than it raises, but for the laws we seek to explain it. And it seems that in chemistry we have done so. Here we may be dealing with geometries as well.

Dos not E = hf = 2m c^2 produce 2 electrons, one antimatter, or two protons likewise, if E is sufficient? Is this not massless = mass?

It has been a while...time to think. Okay, we need to continue seeking explanations for a universe apparently accelerating in its expansion, a Nobel Prize winning conclusion lately reached, and not explained by an explosion. We may need to reconsider a great many hypotheses put forward to explain anomalies. We may need to consider the astronomical phenomena that are unexplained even so, and which are the topic of research at present. We may need to consider how much more complex a Steady State Theory would need to be, and that its rival has the advantage of a very simple explanation (prima face). Much has been addressed before, but some new ideas have begun to occur to me. I looked into magnetism, and managed to grasp that it is not one of four forces accepted in the mainstream. It is electrical. While the velocity of moving electrons is small compared to light, (about 1m/s) the coulomb charge moving is immense. The result is that the special relativistic effect of relative motion, contracting space, increases flux. The resultant imbalance of the influence of positive and negative charges not only manifests and magnetism. It also allows a calculation of the relation between the permeability and permittivity constants in terms of c. This is the clue I was looking for. General relativity considerations of acceleration, while not so simple to compute, do indicate that the revolution of electrons captured by atomic nuclei constitute acceleration. Furthermore, the energy of so called electromagnetic radiation leaving a wire that is carrying an alternating current is directly proportional to the acceleration of electrons. Lastly, that energy is directly proportional to the mass equivalent. Concurrently, the orders of magnitude difference between the permittivity constant and the Gravitational constant(?) seem to be consistent intuitively. Two facts emerge as a consequence. Antimatter has all charges reversed. Thus gravitational forces would be reversed also, explaining Albert Einstein's self confessed "greatest blunder", that forces causing universal expansion result from antimatter and matter repelling one another once in the atomic state. A consequence will be that, while inertial forces are proportional to mass but double signed oppositely and relative to the universe itself, electrons will experience a gravitational force that is in the opposite direction to that of protons, and 1830 times smaller. This implication of the theory presented here will be much easier to contest than the negative gravitational influences on atomic antimatter. The nature of light, though, as the Magneto-Gravitational radiation of quanta, essentially electrical in nature, with a necessary antiparticle to complete the symmetry, is most certainly misunderstood. The three neutrino types presently understood to exist may be little more than members of a full spectrum likewise. Let's face it, we are at present implying that photons are made up of quarks? Does that really fit very well in this scheme? Anyway, those are my thoughts at present. Would anyone like to cast their own light on this matter? Looking forward to some interesting discussion.

Force alone bears rule. It alone levies tribute, as nothing else can. Its legitimation is that it brings peace. Its laws are broken at the risk of its penalties. These must make the advantage derived by defiance virtually pointless. That is, expected benefit of lawlessness must be strictly negative. Taxation, without which government cannot survive, is dependent on tribute. Tribute is dependent on currency, the power over economies. A government in control of its currency, and thus its tribute, is sound and healthy. Bureaucracy administers such systems as here alluded to. Bureaucracy consists of individuals. Individuals can profit by betrayal. Should they take the bait, private interests may coerce and goad such individuals into surrendering elements of this basis for government. Thus governments find their power and control diluted by treason and corruption. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the banking industry represents a greater threat to civil liberty than a standing army. Governments need to reassume control of their economies and execute their traitors. The usurping of the livelihoods of starting price bookies seemed to present no problem to government, to take control of gambling profits, even without a starting price, by the stroke of a pen. This is essentially no different to the same stroke of a pen usurping ALL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS as a source of government revenue. This will even allow the abolition of all tax, leaving in its wake a simple commission, fair and just, for every transaction without exception, levying the same tribute across all classes. The result will be government services properly financed to ensure their legitimating peace provided, by services rendered to all. Investors have had it too good for too long. It is time to look after the people.

You don't appear to have followed me, but fair enough. If mathematics is your thing, see if you can follow my Probabilistic Rating Theory, just to prove to yourself that you weren't talking to a fruit loop. Simulation has proven it beyond doubt, and the program is also written by myself. http://swissimmaculate.com/ Still, thanks for your efforts. You have helped me put out there what I wanted to say, before I shuffle off this planet. Science, to me, is the attempt to interpret the agreed upon evidence of the senses to understand our source, and thereby ourselves. The mystic may be inclined to reverse these last two. Technology just wants to exploit rather than understand anything, and is an axe in the hands of a psychopath (Einstein). The dark entities have brought us to an impasse. The ASST versions (antimatter and neutrinos)are not yet sufficiently amenable to our technology to measure their mass or frequency, and settle matters. The TBBT versions though are only effects, used to explain themselves. This seems to beg the question, from my idea of science. Then Hubble's initial postulate was already a contradiction of "black holes", which defies even my logic. My money is on technology conquering my dark entities first. They seem much more real.

Sorry. I didn't realise that my theory was so poorly understood. Materialisation may occur when a photon and a neutrino can interact in such a way that one of the fundamental particles of matter, and its antiparticle, can be created in such a way that momentum and energy are conserved. Okay. I have supposed that there is essentially no difference between photons and neutrinos, except that instruments made of light matter will not be able to detect dark energy directly. This may be overcome by causing dark energy to interact with light energy so that we may obtain measureable results. Given this much has been achieved, we may have a photon with energy E = hf and a neutrino with energy E' = hf', in a particular frame of reference S. If (E + E') = 2m_e_0.c^2, then an electron and a positron of masses m_e_0 and -m_e_0 respectively will separate with the kinetic energy m_e.c^2 - m_e_0.c^2. This kinetic energy may need to overcome electrical attraction. The frame of reference S will most likely be the inertial one where E = E', unless other particles should become involved.

It has taken some time to consider an intelligible nomenclature for this theory. The immediate reaction to it displays the difficulty in comprehension of its mechanisms. Using names of competing elements may be helpful here. I feel that alternatives would have been worse. Okay. Consider this scenario. Hubble has just shown that the universe is not only expanding but has accelerating expansion. He has no recourse, under such circumstances but to seek the explanation for this. Obviously. clusters attract their own components but repel other clusters. Why? Here are the alternatives that immediately come to mind: 1. Gm_1.m_2/r^2 is too simple, and G is not a constant. 2. Gm_1.m_2/r^2 is correct, but the signs of m_1 and m_2 are opposite for a cluster's closest neighbours. 3. BigBangium is some mysterious new substance, 'accelatron', which evolves as a 'black hole' ages or gets larger, perhaps by soaking up all the spent energy when space collapses into the same 'singularity', and the 'accelatron' is a low explosive which continually produces the required forces for an indefinite time yet to conclude. Which of these sounds the more ad hoc? Which is, by Einstein's principle, the simpler explanation? The point is, that the Big Bang was hypothesised before all the evidence had been gathered. Again there are choices: 1. Abandon the initial hypothesis; 2. Generate an hypothesis, consistent with the first, to explain the anomaly. Each time the second option is chosen, should anomalies compound, the initial hypothesis is rendered more doubtful. Concerning the initial hypothesis or hypotheses, though, it is more difficult to find the inductive starting point of a theory, when the number of initial hypotheses required is larger, and more evidence may be needed to create such a basis. It is not unlikely, however, that the ad hoc additions will approximate correct solutions to some extent, which is what we have with TBBT & ASST. As an aside, were it not for the date of Easter, based on the phases of the moon, ancient Greek learning would have been unimportant and lost. The burning of the library at Alexandria, though, has all but lost its origins. For this reason, the Church maintained a template for learning and schools through the dark ages. To answer the question - the Michelson-Morley Experiment was evidence of the need for 'explanation'. 'c' was an hypothesis. x' = (x - vt)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) y' = y z' = z t' = (t - vx/c^2)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) was the mathematics. Predictions from this was the verification of the 'explanation' which was 'c'. A counter example will falsify 'c', or at least, limit it to conditions set by variables not being considered. Such a variable and condition, v << c, was required by Newtonian space/time. Thus: "There could be no fairer destiny for any physical theory than that it should point the way to a more comprehensive theory in which it lives on as a limiting case." - Einstein. * Expansion rates of (anti/)galactic clusters can be compared with estimated of materialisation based on cosmic ray protons reaching the upper atmosphere. Does this gel with a steady state situation? * Using m and -m in the gravitational force law, and estimates of the masses of (anti/)galactic clusters, compute the forces involved and their contribution to universal acceleration. Does this gel with Hubble's constant (a changing one with time, to be sure, but best we have). * Could core recycling account for gamma ray bursts. * Does antigravity account for Hoag's object. * Could antigravitational effects of massive neutrino generation in globular clusters disconnect these from the universal Coriolis effect, cause hydrogen generation in spirals perpendicular to the galactic plane, account for barred (anti/)galaxies, facts associated with fossil clusters, and such. Astronomers and astrophysicists may be delightfully surprised by agreement with this theory, where current hypotheses regarding dark matter and energy are failing them. Such considerations are way beyond my knowledge base. 1. "Neutrinos and photons interact with each other" 2. "Light matter does not interact with dark energy and vice versa" This is what I suspect completes the picture for ASST. I will not hide the problem with understanding how this exactly works. With 1. the mechanism for recycling and materialisation seem clear, but several questions remain: * Is transformation of photons to neutrinos (and vice versa) a continuous process when passing through a changing G field? * Is dematerialisation (recycling) likewise continuous for (anti/)matter? * Are the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass a consequence of photon/neutrino fluxes across their spectra throughout space, and throughout the two types of matter, where only one type impedes each? Consideration of collision between a photon and an electron in frames where e is at rest, and where it comes to rest, seem to bear this out. With 2. the puzzling situation exists that the charged components of antimatter are not affected by the oscillating electric field of the photon, and vice versa again. This is a problem for which answers may be: 1. that induced magnetic fields do the work; 2. other dimensions exist; 3. both; 4. other. I don't know. These are areas for research, should confirmations begin to indicate validity for ASST.