Pymander

So far there is one source that answers such questions without creating more, at least in my experience. Short of anything more sensible, I'm running with this. Be warned, it is a psychic source, and many fakes have destroyed the credence of such. 9. (Q) May we assume that the term "entangle" means a soul's participation and immersion in a form or system of creative expression which was not necessarily intended for such participation and immersion, as the earth? (A) To be sure, there are those consciousnesses or awarenesses that have not participated in nor been a part of earth's PHYSICAL consciousness; as the angels, the archangels, the masters to whom there has been attainment, and to those influences that have prepared the way. 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. Thus 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. TEXT OF READING 5755-2 (lines 2115227 to 2115253 of 'C:\ECR\Edgar Cayce Readings.txt') 7. (Q) Please explain the following from rdg. [262-96, Par. 11] May 24, 1936: "For the soul had understanding before he partook of the flesh in which the choice was to be made." Why (if the soul had understanding) the necessity to take flesh in order to make the choice? (A) Considereth thou that Spirit hath its manifestations, or does it USE manifestations for its activity? The Spirit of God is aware through activity, and we see it in those things celestial, terrestrial, of the air, of all forms. And ALL of these are merely manifestations! The Knowledge, the understanding, the comprehending, then necessitated the entering in because it partook of that which WAS in manifestation; and thus the PERFECT body, the celestial body, became an earthly body and thus put on flesh. When the earth became a dwelling place for matter, when gases formed into those things that man sees in nature and in activity about him, then matter began its ascent in the various forms of physical evolution - in the MIND of God! The spirit chose to enter (celestial, not an earth spirit - he hadn't come into the earth yet!), chose to put on, to become a part of that which was as a command not to be done! Then those so entering MUST continue through the earth until the body-mind is made perfect for the soul, or the body- celestial again. TEXT OF READING 262-99 (lines 216142 to 216174 of 'C:\ECR\Edgar Cayce Readings.txt')

'Main stream science' is required to be accepted without question at an academic institution. Contrary to popular belief though, a theory is always speculative, with no right to call itself otherwise than any equally viable alternative. We can never prove a theory. We can only disprove, or improve by refinement, when further evidence comes to light. We can never know, like the detective, that further evidence may contradict the theory we presently favour. It is an abuse of 'reason' to claim an alternative theory as proof against another. Only direct evidence can do this, and evidence which is not derived on the basis of contrary theories and supportive hypotheses. Premise, theory, hypothesis, postulate, axiom and other such terms are equivalent and form no sort of proof. All these are speculative. A theorem (not a theory) is derived by deduction from an hypothesis or several hypotheses. The theorem can be proven. It rests on the hypotheses, and deductive validity. The hypotheses may later be proven from further more primitive hypotheses. But these model observed evidence by abstraction from amongst empirical data, information, knowledge or wisdom, and this constitutes a simplification of the composite sources in observed reality. Never can we escape such a tentative foundation for our theorem. Otherwise deduction proceeds ad nauseum or is circular. Mathematics is less at the mercy of empirical data and more abstract as in isolating variables, and calls its hypotheses axioms. Science employes mathematics, but note that quantum considerations properly require rational numbers, not reals, so these limit validity. Science also deals with a range of empirical evidence requiring further modeling, and becomes more tentative as greater composites are attempted to be described. Its theorems are called conclusions, which may fail testing. A theory on the other hand may be the king pin hypothesis among hypotheses. We could probably grade sciences from chemistry to psychology according to the number of unproven hypotheses each relies on for validity. If in mainstream scientific discussion, one preceeds a dialogue with the sugestion that alternatives may exist, is this not a positive step for science? If we suggest that a theory is ironclad, that is no different to bigone paradigms which are clung to by some, and they are then no different to us. The argument from mainstreem science belongs with reductio ad absurdum and other falacious logic. We must proceed according to one alternative, but always acknowledge the distincty possibility of not having chosen well. Whoever sets himself up as a judge in the field of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods - Albert Einstein.

Enlightening. Thanks D H for your thorough reply to my question. It complements the Wiki material well. My speculations were otherwise but I am disallowed to continue with these. Will be studying the psychology and logic of all participants in my discussions. My own psychology seems suspect. Sorry I couldn't answer more directly, but the tree of enquiry mixed with other extraneous input presented too difficult a task to have any hope of success or conclusion, and forced me to remain general in focus. Then, enquiry into our evolution from whatever source must cross all subject boundaries and specialities of science, that none can conquer alone. Thanks also for the links from Swansont. This Forum gives an oportunity for people to express themselves which normal social interactions tend to exclude an obscure.

Okay. And now that regulation is in place, and CFC's are regulated, are these phenomena becoming less pronounced?

Ozone is O3, a powerful oxidising agent. What is the cause of northern leaching. Why the southern hole, when over two thirds of humanity is in the northern hemisphere? It has been blamed on halogenated carbon compounds like freon, a refrigerant, which now attracts a tax like carbon tax for CO2 emissions. Yet carbon tetrachloride, once used extensively as a dry cleaning fluid, was also used in fire extinguishers, being non-combustible, and creating a heavy vapour to smother fires. That was until it became known that, with alcohol in the system, breathing the vapour caused instant fatal renal failure. These substances do not occur naturally, to my knowledge. Why are they blamed?

'Creationists' choose what they call symbolic (eg. being born again) and what they call literal (the garden of Eden). Science compounds hypotheses on flawed hypotheses (big bang, asymmetric matter - antimatter, dark matter, dark energy, neutrino, followed by more neutrino rediscovering itself than Madonna (zero rest mass, own antiparticle, now it has mass, now it is a transformer), gravitons, particles with mass being speed of light forces to maintain time/space and thereby c, composite particles being fundumental,etc), interpret a handful of numbers, which isolate variables more or less successfully, to support anything but hypothesis number one. This does not even bring into the question the demons none of us can yet control except by denying them in ourselves, and projecting the same at others as brothers in arms. Einstein had problems with more than quantum theory and Shroedingers elaborate particle/probability model. I have read enough of his work to know that he did not sling off at those who threaten his smugness, because he didn't have such as I have just witnessed, if any. He said much more by omission, much that is not understood, and much about the very philosophy of science, its (valid) methods as well as its (severe) limitations. Science sees through a microscope but is bewildered when it looks through a telescope, both metaphorically, and quite literally. Do not be too proud of this technological marvel you have created. Its power is insignificant compared to the power of the Force. That is plagiarism! Today I see the exploitation of science against humanity, and Einstein's more subtle works becoming slowly understood and a threat to such as use ... what to achieve their ends, and by the same as means, and no government not under that power? Wealth panders only to selfishness and irresistably invites abuse - Albert Einstein. Make no mistake, great achievments have been made, with much dedication, and always the scientist stands on the shoulders of giants - paraphrasing Isaac Newton. But if you educate a devil you get a clever devil. And knowledge and power become constructive or destructive in direct proportion, depending on application for the benefit of the few or the many (Spock). Mostly, the beneficiaries of the science created by honest men, conscientiously attempting to assist and advance humanity, are as human as anyone else. The existence of one who could say "the Lord of this world cometh, and he hath nothing in me" is simply denied.

Thank you. Combining 'science' and 'religion' is apparently also unwise, at least today. That, though, is what is meant by occult, and the only explanation for astrology, and other 'ancient wisdoms'. I'm sure you got some help locating the PDF. Didn't know it was there myself, outside of the cited site, under Probabilistic Rating Theory.

This identifies me, which I had hoped to avoid. The work on SwissImmaculate is my own. Pretty rough shot. Its inclusion was for two purposes, one to give it recognition, the other to lend credibility to the rest of my stuff. Software to test the efficacy of Odds Ratings is written in Pascal, keyboard input. It proves the system works without doubt, but mastery won't be a snack. Worth it though, if you run a chess club. Got the feeling "The Big Bang Theory" is sacred, and alternatives are blasphemy, so I'm done. Thank you all for your participation in the Expansion Tectonics argument. I was not just trolled but totally balrogged. It was fun. In case the point has escaped anyone, I have been accused of plagiarising my own creation, the cited PDF. But thanks, some may find this document enlightening. Personally, I reckon its worth an honorary degree in maths.

The mass of the Earth has hardly changed (other than from solar wind becoming water and from meteorites). The temperature of the core is rising. Reactors produce unprecedented amounts of heat from fuel slowly. Atom bombs do it quickly. Slowly decaying uranium, thorium, potasium and whatnot on the surface is also decaying, but the heat disipates into space. This is not so in the core. The heat has nowhere to go in any hurry. The tempratures at the surface layers decreases over time, and since the Earth formed, thickens the crust slowly. In the core heat is trapped and takes time to reach the surface. Temperatures can be millions of degrees, while we presume it is cooling instead. The heavier elements have sunk and tend to have the more radioactive isotopes, perhaps all isotopes for elements like uranuim. Who presumed the core is only molten iron, yet uranium ore exists at the surface. Uranium is the heaviest element occuring naturally because its half life is relatively long. Since supernova created these elements until the present, all with suffiently long half lives will still exist, and plutonium with half life 2000 years will be all gone. The earth has been cooling its skin for 4600 million years. From the moment the crust thickened volcanoes would have vented this heat in large numbers originally but not very big. It is now 20 miles thick under continents, but only about five under oceans. Volcanoes are now few and huge. Instead rifting, like the Great African Ridge (a new future ocean), vents much of this heat, and is caused by expansion. The planet grows from the mid ocean ridge found in every ocean, and the basins are basalt, new at the ridge, and up to 180 million years old at the edges of continents. On the contrary, rocks as old as the Earth exist only on the continents. Pangea and Gondwanaland make no sense. Why come together to split up? The continents jigsaw together into the entire planet without oceans, 55% of current radius! There is no certainty of tectonic plate boundaries, nor of the causes of the greatly insufficient subduction sites, nor of their nature as such rather than rifting or both. This speculation long preceeded The Geological Map of tThe World, and should, like much else, never have been set in stone. Why do they do this? The Moon has not likely been ripped out of the Earth's core materials where the heavier elements would be. It therefore seems to lack tectonic activity. The ring of fire seems a little isolated to account for all necessary subduction activity. Then, what happened to the planet that is now asteroids. And why is someone who questions current but transient 'scientific' opinion a fruit loop. Some theories (Pacific caused by throwing off of moon, bats are primates, KT extinction caused by supernova, etc) seem to have been correct to me and then changed, some like pterosaurs could not fly went the other way. To be an immaculate sheep, one must first of all be a sheep - Albert Einstein. Too bad about the bomb. We likely would still call "time and space not real" theories (once occult) woo woo. He was no sheep and very woo woo, and both were a necessary part of his genius. Yet I've seen him portrayed as an aetheist 'reasoning' with a priest, in a school propaganda doco. Not much more can be accomplished here, check out the plethora of leads I've supplied, if you want to lose the derails in your tracks, and think for yourself. I just can't see how anyone can look at The Geological Map of The World and not believe in expansion tectonics. Then ... Jesus performed miracles, and the authorities vied with him and had him murdered, or is that myth? Are you absolutely sure? So Jews don't really exist either and the Bible was written by J.R.R.Tolkein. Again, the Constantine bull (Nexus again, also read Uncensored and Atlantis Rising, some makes sense, some does not (to me))doesn't wash after the Gospel of Thomas was discovered. Cool. I'm a nut. People, life, the universe and / or God (by any name) must make sense to YOU. ...if thou art true to thine self, the stars in their course will fight for thee; but if thou art upon those ways that make for question marks here as to thy veracity, thy sincerity, thy ability, as to thy consideration of each and everyone in the proper sphere that touches each proposition coming before self, then - as it were the moon and the sun are set upon thy efforts, and the darkness of trouble and discord arises from those seeds of uncertainty that bring distressing experiences in the activities of all. From Edgar Cayce reading 257-162

The mass has not changed (other than by more solar wind becoming water and any meteorites). The temperature of the core is rising. Reactors produce unprecedented amounts of heat from fuel slowly. Atom bombs do it quickly. Slowly decaying uranium, thorium, potasium and whatnot on the surface is also decaying, but the heat disipates into space. This is not so in the core. The heat has nowhere to go in any hurry. The tempratures at the surface layers decreases over time, and since the Earth formed, thickens the crust slowly. In the core heat is trapped and takes time to reach the surface. Temperatures can be millions of degrees, while we presume it is cooling instead. The heavier elements have sunk and tend to have the more radioactive isotopes, perhaps all isotopes for elements like uranuim. Who presumed the core is only molten iron, yet uranium ore exists at the surface. Uranium is the heaviest element occuring naturally because its half life is relatively long. Since supernova created these elements until the present, all with suffiently long half lives will still exist, and plutonium with half life 2000 years will be all gone. The earth has been cooling its skin for 4600 million years. From the moment the crust thickened volcanoes would have vented this heat in large numbers originally but not very big. It is now 20 miles thick under continents, but only about five under oceans. Volcanoes are now few and huge. Instead rifting, like the Great African Ridge (a new future ocean), vents much of this heat, and is caused by expansion. The planet grows from the mid ocean ridge found in every ocean, and the basins are basalt, new at the ridge, and up to 180 million years old at the edges of continents. On the contrary, rocks as old as the Earth exist only on the continents. Pangea and Gondwanaland make no sense. Why come together to split up? The continents jigsaw together into the entire planet without oceans, 55% of current radius! There is no certainty of tectonic plate boundaries, nor of the causes of the greatly insufficient subduction sites, nor of their nature as such rather than rifting or both. This speculation long preceeded The Geological Map of tThe World, and should, like much else, never have been set in stone. Why do they do this? The Moon has not likely been ripped out of the Earth's core materials where the heavier elements would be. It therefore seems to lack tectonic activity. The ring of fire seems a little isolated to account for all necessary subduction activity. Then, what happened to the planet that is now asteroids. And why is someone who questions current but transient 'scientific' opinion a fruit loop. Some theories (Pacific caused by throwing off of moon, bats are primates, KT extinction caused by supernove, etc) seem to have been correct to me and then changed. To be an immaculate sheep, one must first of all be a sheep - Albert Einstein. Too bad about the bomb. We likely would still call "time and space not real" theories (once occult) woo woo. He was no sheep and very woo woo, and both were a necessary part of his genius. Yet I've seen him portrayed as an aetheist in a school doco, arguing with a priest. Not much more can be accomplished here, check out the links I have given, if you find time. I just can't see how anyone can look at The Geological Map of The World and not believe in expansion tectonics. Then ... Jesus performed miracles, and the authorities vied with him and had him murdered, or is that myth? Are you absolutely sure? So Jews don't really exist either and the Bible was written by Tolkein's ancestor. Cool. I'm a nut.

Now we are getting somewhere with this. Will someone please look at the Scientific American article on Earth Expansion, Dr. Maxlow's two Nexus articles on Expansion Tectonics, and The Geological Map of The World (GMW) he uses as evidence. Breifly, Plate Subduction Tectonics is a necessary further hypothesis and is based on the implicit Constant Earth Radius hypothesis. This latter is false, just as absolute time and space were false implicit assumptions, hypotheses, prejudices, whatever name you like. Building on a false hypothesis with further more questionable hypotheses to explain anomalies is a sad feature of post-Einstein 'science', and highly un-Einstein-like. In Maxlow's second article he admitted his theory had two problems. 1. Where has the water come from since the Earth had 55% current radius 180MYA clearly indicated by GMW. 2. What can explain the evidenced exponential rate of expansion. Other than iconology, I needed to study paleontology and read Stephen Jay Gould's "Book of Life" twice before the second article was published. This allowed me to integrate Geology and Paleontology (all sciences are required for both these subjects). Why turn a blind eye and a deaf ear as a thrall to what exactly? Competition between capitalists, and their control of media and education, unchecked. Now here's some real woo. Edgar Cayce is now a DVD containing 20 time the text of The Bible & Apocrypha KJV just in readings. Woodrow Wilson said "No man is that good a liar" and employed EC to end The World War ("The Fourteen Point Plan") and prevent another. According to this psychic (1877 - 1945) "the Moon was thrown off from the Earth". I have no reason, having studied these readings, to disbelieve Cayce, and time only verifies his predictions and philosophy (Hermetic). Patience Worth is another such source from the same timeframe. Together with Plato's "Critias and Timaeus", all need to be discarded with extreme prejudice to be honoured as a scientist. Quoting Isaac Newton, "...I have studied it, and you have not." What's the excuse? Oh yeah, "Genius borders insanity". We need to reexamine exactly what is CRAP.

A definite integral produces a perfect result. Simpson's rule may approximate by considering a tenth degree polynomial passing through 10 points on a curve, but will not be perfect except for equal or lesser degree polynomials. If we cannot solve the indefinite integral, or use numbers precise enough for higher degree polynomials, we must use approximate methods, and results will not be perfect. Odds Ratings rely, like all mathematics, on defining axioms. Odds Ratings needs only one. Average wins per loss are directly proportional to the natural exponent of the rating difference (at any time). The rest is deduction. Elo Ratings are approximate, with severe limitation, ad hoc functions with replaceable constants depending on rating differences, and inflation, like a bad economy run by lunatics. Rating changes are forced to be very small to prevent severe anomalies. This can be very demoralising to new players, and advantages frequent and seasoned players (same analogy). Here is the next chapter of the theory, to give a clue how the theory was developed. I won't continue further than to say that what is already given is sufficient to apply Odds Ratings to software and interactive game sites. 2. Point Sequences A game of skill is one at which absolute mastery is unobtainable. This mathematics can accordingly never deliver, nor process, a 'probability' of one or zero. It measures the relative degree of mastery of players of a particular game. Chess is a game of skill, although, for a while, Capablanca was thought (even by himself) to have attained such complete mastery. For six years he did not lose a single game. While computers are on the verge of invincibility by human 'masters', there will be no certainty of outcome amongst themselves. The number of electrons in the visible universe is less than the number of games possible. The relative playing strength of any two players A and B is evident in the proportion of points scored by each. Thus our measurable degree of relative mastery consists of the probability Pab of a win (absolute success) by player A. If A is the stronger player and will risk losing rather than draw, his m'th to his n'th game results Si will consist of the point sequence Si = int ( ½ + iPab ) – int ( ½ + ( i – 1 ) Pab ) …(i) where i = m, m + 1, … , n – 1, n For instance, Pab = ¾, m = 1, n = 4 is the sequence {1,1,0,1}. On the other hand, were A a cautious player, who will draw before risking a loss, never losing against a weaker player Si = ½ ( int ( ½ + 2iPab ) – int ( ½ + 2 ( i – 1 ) Pab ) …(ii) where the same Pab, m and n give the sequence {1, ½,1, ½}. These idealizations lose no generality, since the reality deviates but little. The deviations can be interpreted as fluctuations in playing strength. We need to infer Pab from these normal point sequences. However, for a given point sequence, Pab is not unique. Given Pab = ¾, m = 1, n = 8 sequence (i) is {1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1} but Pab = 4/5 produces the sequence {1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0} so that n < 7 cannot distinguish Pab to this precision. On the contrary note, too long a sequence implies too long a rating period, where Pab is not likely to have remained constant for these two players. Further, we are only finding the relative strength of players A and B, and other players need to be integrated into our calculations. This integration requires Odds Ratings, which we shall deduce.

Thank you for reading one of my articles. My intention is only to nutshell some theories, viewpoints, opinions or whatever, that I have researched and incubated over time. Each contains "nails and goads" to direct the interest of others to research my ideas, especially those more specialised than myself, should they bother with this stuff. In the space (and attention spans) available there is little more possible. Please take time to investigate, especially where more conjectural hyptheses of science are concerned. Theories have changed, and no doubt will again. Here's an idea that deserves some work - primates have evolved independently on three continents, long separated by Tectonic Expansion (I could never swallow "Subduction or Plate Tectonics" - thanks Dr. Maxlow for sticking your neck out). In fact, four, if bats really are primates as was originally decided. These were the only 'mammals' found in New Zealand. We are not mammals, but independant descendents of the pterosaurs, and paleontology has yet to find a satisfactory candidate. Fallen angels indeed! DNA can resolve this if anyone should bother to check it out, just as other cladistries have been redecided beyond morphology. Maybe you would like to start this up as a new topic, if only in the negative. To clarify, the Sun has been calculated to lose the mass of the Earth as solar wind in 150 million years, or 30 Earths in protons over its estimated existence, and 26 since the first rains. That would account for our oceans, if water is produced as suggested. As for the increasing size of the planet, we may be sitting on a core of radioactive material, not just iron (judging from the remaining traces in the lithosphere), and under the weight, temperatures may be that of plasma. Calculations of % traces, heat production, and disipation, versus temperature and temperature gradient could make this quite plausible, even if it is a possible eventual "Krypton" scenerio, resulting in another asteroid belt. Some predictive efforts far into the future would also be necessary to release such information. One more way to Zephaniah Chapter 3 (KJV). That predictive effort was certainly inspired.

Let me introduce "The Philosopher's Stone". A touch stone was once used to determine if a metal was high quality gold. Softer 24 carat would leave a trace. Alchemy was the metaphors for things non-physical. The four elements are the dragon's wings (air = temperaments), head (fire = desires), tail (water = emotions) and feet (earth=senses). Mysteries submerged into alchemy as a defence against enforced simplification of Christianity around 553 AD (Fifth Ecumenical Council), which simultaneously rendered hieroglyphics a dead language until the Rosetta stone was discovered. The coercion by Theodora (wife of Justinian Caesar) was submitted to and accepted for advantage, but "he who leadeth into captivity shall be lead into captivity, etc." Gold represents incorruptibility and that which remains when purified by fire with the removal of the dross (oxides of impurities). The Philosopher's Stone is the touch stone of philosophy. According to legend, it was given to Abraham by Hermes (synonymous with Melchizedek OT, Melchisedec NT) on a green emerald tablet. Whatsoever is not consistent with this philosophy is thus purportedly incorrect. It speaks of One Thing being primordial, and all things being thus created from this One Thing, in very metaphorical terms. Abraham's children are still fighting over his heritage today, both literally and metaphorically. Firstly: I speak not fictitious things, but that which is certain and most true. Secondly: What is below is like that which is above: and what is above is like that which is below: to accomplish the miracle of One Thing. Thirdly: And as all things were produced by the One Word of One Being, so all things were produced from this One Thing by adaptation. Fourthly: Its Father is the Sun, its Mother the Moon, the Wind carries it in its belly, its Nurse is the Earth. Fifthly: It is the Father of all perfection throughout the World. Sixthly: Its Power is vigorous if it be changed into Earth. Seventhly: Separate the Earth from the Fire, the subtle from the gross, acting prudently and with judgement. Eighthly: Ascend with the greatest sagacity from the Earth to Heaven, and then again descend to the Earth, and unite together the power of things superior and things inferior. Thus, you will obtain the glory of the Whole World, and obscurity will fly away from you. Ninthly: This has more fortitude than fortitude itself, because it conquers every subtle thing, and can penetrate every solid. Tenthly: Thus was the World formed. Eleventhly: Hence proceed wonders which are here established. Twelfthly: Therefore I am called Hermes Trimegistus, having three parts of the philosophy of the Whole World. Thirteenth: That which I had to say concerning the operation of the Sun is completed.

Words. The universe began and its cause is timeless, and today that cause is the least understood concept we have - consciousness, the I AM THAT I AM, and would not "be" if it were a process requiring time. How long is the wait to arrive at the present, if time always was. Can we wait an eternity and then say "At last!" What is consciousness? Does such a concept belong in Physics? Psychology? Philosophy? Religion? All of the above or none? We deal in the productions of the senses, and assemble the manifold in the mind, and are conscious of our physical and our mental states. That within you which sees and hears and understands is consciousness, separate finite consciousness. A googleplex of transistors is not enough to create it, because only infinity times zero has some finite, though indeterminate, value which may be non zero. A mosquito has consciousness in a limited sense, and do you think we can create one using silicon? At the temperatures of Neptune maybe, steeling ideas from carbon DNA. You can use consciousness to create. Forgetting aliens from light years away, whom I don't believe can cross that distance, what else creates? The source of all consciousness. That source has supplied alternatives to science, but desire is otherwise, and will never be resisted, but must eventually change. For having separated himself through desire, a man seeketh and intermeddleth with all wisdom. Sadly sources do exist for such information, but are forgotten, ignored or held in disrepute because they have been abused, and few are worthy. "Ideas and Opinions" by Albert Einstein is a good start, at least to begin to undermine that disrepute from a reputable source. He gave us that source on a platter, and what did we do with it? Just so, more was once known long ago, and submerged, leaving many mysteries - too many to be the work of aliens. Consider this, how was six million tons of rock assembled to produce an assending passage perfectly aligned with the axis of the planet, peering out at Polaris? How rough was the translation to Khufu? Where in the Book of the Dead (properly The Book of Manifestations in the Light badly rendered The Book of Coming Forth by Day) is there any mention? It isn't explained but the universe is? Okay.

Hypotheses are the basis of logical (deductive) arguments. Hypotheses state a property of reality as one perceives it. It represents an inductive step, arguing from the known to the unknown, a creative process computers are less suited to. Some examples of hypotheses are: a + (b + c) = (a + b) + c states a property of addition. "c, the speed of light, is constant relative to any observer" is a property of creation. Newtonian mechanics was based on hypotheses which were only approximate by the factor 1/(1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2), which is insignificant when v << c. We can not prove hypotheses, they abstract from complex reality by isolating variables. Without them, logical arguments or deductions must be infinitely derived or become circular (begging the question). Hypotheses can only be formed from available evidence. Aristotle & Plato, Darwin, Hubble, and Freud did not have available the same evidence we have today. As evidence increases, hypotheses may need to be reexamined in new light, and arguments based on them must be abandoned. However, the status quo may, because of advantage, create massive inertia to such change. Frequently evidence is simply ignored and kept out of the light. This is supported by the history of revolutions in thought. This very important basis for reasoning seem poorly understood, and the nature of 'proof'' is thus well exposed. It must always rests on unproveable hypotheses, which can be quite unconscious. "Common sense is that layer of prejudice laid down in the human mind before the age of 18." Albert Einstein. Prejudice, axioms, and premises are other words for hypotheses. I hope this clears up a few matters, rather than confuses further.

Probabilistic Rating Theory (Odds Ratings) A = ½ ( Ao + Bo + R ) B = ½ ( Ao + Bo – R ) P = 1 / (1 + e ^ ( –KR ) ) R = (log ( (e ^ ( KRo( Ro> 0 ) ) + S ) / ( e ^ ( –KRo( Ro< 0 ) ) + 1 – S ) ) ) / K K = –( log ( 1 / Ps – 1 ) ) / Rs Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. Point Sequences 3. The Rating Function 4. Concatenation of Probabilities 5. Concatenation Laws 6. Practical Ratings 7. Fundamental Theorem of Games of Skill 8. Individual Games 9. Probability Transformations 10. Rating Changes 11. Rating Tolerance 12. Rating Change Formulae 13. Formulae Summary 14. Playing Strength Distribution 15. Non-chronological Processing 1. Introduction Chess is one of many games of skill at which the novice finds the accomplished master invincible. This theory is designed to ascribe a RATING to the playing strength manifested by sequences of game results. ODDS RATINGS are numbers of mathematical significance. The ratings of two members of the chess playing fraternity allow the calculation of winning odds. Ratings (and odds) will change with each game result unless equal players draw. It is a moot point whether actual playing strength (and associated rating) is effectively constant. Only playing strength, as manifested in game results, can be measured. We refer to calculated ratings, which oscillate between fixed limits (TOLERANCE). Within tolerance a player will perceive his recent PERFORMANCE, but beyond that a change in playing strength is indicated. Performance variations are a result of POINT SEQUENCES associated with playing strength, and the interaction of multiple point sequences when playing several opponents, as in tournaments. This theory is applicable to any game (situation) where the fraction of absolute success is measureable. The probability associated with ratings can be interpreted as the expected fraction of success per game. It provides the most current and accurate measure that can be calculated from the available data. A few generations of programmable calculators have permitted the evolution of both text book theory and program code (a Swiss Tournament Manager). The STM doubles as a simulator, which has verified the efficacy of the system. Randomized results generated according to implied odds have been used to reconstruct assumed ratings. Accuracy is achieved as predicted by theoretical tolerance expectations. The system can be parameterized. For ease of mental odds estimation, as well as a comparable rating range, these seem best: 0 to 3000 should cover all assumed 10^9 players, considered Normal with mean 1500. The following table of odds against rating differences implies a tolerance of plus or minus 50 points. Rapid convergence allows mean = provisional rating. Zero sum rating changes maintain the mean and prevent rating inflation. As such, Fischer at 2760 would win 6200 games per loss (or 3100 per draw) against the average player. TABLE 1 Wins per Loss Rating Difference 1 0 2 100 4 200 8 300 16 400 32 500 64 600 128 700 256 800 512 900 1024 1000 This table (or its implied function) forms one statement of the fundamental hypothesis upon which Odds Ratings rests, allowing the deduction of all (seven) necessary formulae and (five) protocols for non-chronological processing. Formulae Summary Ratings Ao and Bo will denote the old ratings of two players, A and B the new ratings after player A scores S in { 0, ½, 1 }, the result of one game, against player B. Rating Difference Ro will denote the old rating difference Ro = Ao – Bo and R will denote the new rating difference R = A – B after player A scores S in { 0, ½, 1 }, the result of one game, against player B. System Constant If Rs is the rating difference used to denote Qs wins per loss, then the system constant K will be K = ( log Qs ) / Rs Qs = 2 and Rs = 100 is suggested as the best parameterization (see TABLE 1). Probability Given a rating difference R, the expected wins per loss Q is given by Q = e ^ ( KR ) or probability P by P = Q / ( Q + 1 ) = 1 / (1 + e ^ ( –KR ) ) = ½ + ½ tanh ( ½ KR ) Rating Difference Transformation An old rating difference Ro and a game score S in {0, ½, 1} will produce a new rating difference R given by R = (log ( (e ^ ( KRo( Ro> 0 ) ) + S ) / ( e ^ ( –KRo( Ro< 0 ) ) + 1 – S ) ) ) / K where true = 1 and false = 0 Rating Change A and B are the new ratings after a rating difference change from Ro to R A = ½ ( Ao + Bo + R ) B = ½ ( Ao + Bo – R ) Note: These formulae are sufficient to process chronological rating changes (as for instance while managing a Swiss tournament). Non-Chronological Processing Non-chronological processing requires special protocols. With Odds Ratings a chronology must be assumed to allow processing as normal. These protocols optimize the assumptions and prevent anomalous ones, as explained below. They effectively average the performance of each player. In fact, non-chronological processing is the only average of any kind produced by Odds Ratings. The protocols follow: 1. Maximize Draws – individual pairs of players are assumed to have drawn the maximum number of games achieving their overall score. Draw tolerances are smaller than win tolerances, and the corresponding point sequences converge more rapidly (see below for formula). 2. Score Based Point Sequences – by normalizing the point sequences so that the wins per loss ratio remains as constant throughout as possible, the accumulation of losses or wins at one end of the sequence does not occur (by design or accident). Such would produce the effect of an increasing or decreasing rating throughout the games. The i’th game result Si in a normal point sequence, maximizing draws, is given by Si = ½ ( int ( ½ + 2iPab ) – int ( ½ + 2 ( i – 1 ) Pab ) ) where: int X is the largest whole number less than or equal to X, Pab = Sab / Gab, Sab is the overall score, and Gab is the total number of games, by player A against player B. 3. Completed Rounds – if the maximum games by any individual pair of players is Gm, then processing must be executed as Gm rounds, where no pair of players play more than one game per round. Furthermore, pairs with one game play in the last round, those with 2 games in the last 2 rounds, those with Gm - 1 in all but the first. That way the players with fewer games are processed against more accurate ratings. 4. Hierarchical Processing – before each round, players are sorted according to their progressively recalculated ratings. They are then processed from the lowest to the highest, each against the lowest to the highest remaining. First in best dressed effects are thus avoided, the weaker players getting first bite of the cherry, rather than the field being plundered of points by the strongest first. 5. Two Pass Processing – by using two passes to reprocess a completed Swiss tournament, the method most effectively rates an entire field of unrated players (set to the system average = provisional rating). However, a small number of unrated players among several rated players need no special treatment. This same method also provides the perfect tie-break, finely grading relative play on the basis of a single event. Conclusion The information here is sufficient to implement Odds Ratings either on a site or worldwide. The theoretical proof or derivation from the fundamental hypothesis is available, if involved. This hypothesis was, in fact, that the relationship between probabilities P and rating differences R is, in essence P = ½ + ½ tanh R which, when graphed, will be seen to be intuitively obvious. But the shape came to me in 1974, and I’m ashamed to say that the exact function came to me only ten years ago, though others had been tried. The correct function precipitated some surprisingly simplified mathematics and vastly superior results. That the exponential nature didn’t occur to me sooner I can only blame on the fact that I never did my homework. I should have noticed the similarity to differential equations for capstans. But here is the reason for the invincibility of masters of the game, and the many grades in any form of mastery. TABLE 1 is then a relatively trivial mathematical implication of this (with added parameterization for the more familiar scaling). Point sequences form an integral and necessary part of the theory of Odds Ratings. For the chess player who is also a mathematician (such as Arpad Elo, Max Euwe and Jose Capablanca) this theory does a lot to provide him with more realistic expectations of his abilities. The interaction of these sequences during tournaments also goes far to demonstrate possible outcomes that can be expected. Point sequences are idealized ordered sets of game results. They are not very far from the reality, certainly not as far as Professor Arpad Elo imagined. “The measurement of the rating of an individual might be compared with the measurement of the position of a cork bobbing up and down on the surface of agitated water with a yard stick tied to a rope swaying in the wind.” This is an illusion, not a fact. Point sequences don’t stray so far as the bobbing cork, and the linear functions used are the yard stick, and way off. But Elo Ratings and its offspring are not based on probability, but on statistics. Averages take much data even when nothing is changing overall. What is more changeable than man? Arpad Elo was commissioned by the USCF in 1959 to replace dysfunctional systems, and provided it on request in one year. FIDE struggled on 10 years more without Elo Ratings. Presumably they were adopted in desperation because nothing better was forthcoming. Remember that Einstein didn’t produce Relativity on demand in one year, rather in ten, and driven by curiosity. He said “It is a wonder that the tender plant of a young child’s curiosity isn’t entirely strangled by modern methods of instruction.” Well, that’s the best excuse I can come up with for not doing my homework. But Arpad did the best he could in the time he had. The inductive leap often required is usually not available on demand. Like the tender plant it must be nurtured and loved. And beginning with an incorrect hypothesis can leave you flogging a dead horse, just like placing faith in a flawed chess opening system.

This topic in applied mathematics concerns the rating of chess players so that rating differences will imply odds, convergent with increasing data a the mathematically deduced best rate possible without causing anomalies. Applied to Swiss Tournaments, computer simulations verify perfect ranking and unprecedented convergence for odds calculation. The calculation of odds is a unique feature, and allows objective analysis of simulation results. The formulae can be applied to any endevour between pairs of competitors, where success may be guaged as two parts of the whole. In chess o, 1/2, or 1 are the only results used.

Here's a thought. In chemistry, two hydrogen atoms may each fill their first electron shell to maximum 2, and a covalent bond exists. The protons are rather attracted to the electron charge between them, and so, do not repel each other. Energy is released as photons (and perhaps neutrinos as well, how would we know?). In like manner, an electron with sufficient energy and thus shorter wavelength may hold two protons together at orders of magnitude shorter distances and release orders of magnitude more energetic photons, to become deuterium. A electron sandwiched between protons in plasma or in a nova could overcome the initial repulsion of the protons as the electronic charge concentrates with increasing frequency, so that repulsion is overcome and reverts to attraction instead, finally releasing more energy than is initially absorbed. Thus our nova, for example, first collapses, and then explodes, leaving a neutron star, but in our present sun, the deuterium soon becomes helium as in the hydrogen (deuterium and tritium) bomb. And like in chemistry, some molecules are stable and others are not. But the 'neutron' ejected from an atom is an ion of sorts, and likewise unstable, only that it is neutral. We now have an explanation for complex nuclei without requiring further particles, even the neutron being a transient composite. Let's face it, all further particles beyond the photon, the proton, and the electron rapidly dissociate into these. The 100% symmetric antiparticles, defined as such relative, again, to the observer, seems inescapable. That this is not so is only a cover for an apparently mostly matter universe - one more hypothesis. Do neutrinos and photons manifest in pairs also and how would we know? All further particles require more energy to compile, and live shorter lives, perhaps to a limit which may well be the Higg's Boson. Are they really necessary to explain the bonds of forces? This seems sufficient, other than quantum states defining finite numbers of possible entities. Even the universe is finite, though unbounded, the three dimensional surface of a four dimensional hyper sphere, at least for matter! Do we really need to compound hypotheses, cook up scrambled mathematics, and disengage the right hemisphere for science? Special relativity: The velocity of light is constant irrespective of the relative velocity of the source. General relativity: The force of gravity is indistinguishable from the inertial force of acceleration. Unified Field Theory: There exists One Force only - perhaps? The antiphoton (initially called a negatron) was discovered the year Einstein departed this life. Our universe may only have required these three particles and their antiparticles for its existence, with sufficient 'properties' to make all of manifestation, the 'firmament', possible. If you like, only the photon (and perhaps the neutrino is a necessary antiparticle in gravity or inertia, analogous to positive and negative charges participating through relatively in electric and magnetic fields) brought initially into manifestation, invested with energy and properties, has brought the universe into existence. We can learn these properties but we cannot explain them! Not so incidentally, ancient traditions relate that light (ether) and then darkness (vibration into light and dark energies) were the first creation, not Bigbangium. The Higg's Boson may well be the Lawrencium of the subatomic world, and as per tradition perhaps going a little farther back than we know, or from (verifiable) psychic sources, God is light. Ridicule this for raining on the parade, especially at the cost. Ridicule it for suggesting to 'science' that God (by any name) may invest creation with purpose, and our concepts need to progress to such an understanding. I may deserve it and I may also be right. Only time brings in all the evidence blind men need, first to argue, and finally, to recognize an elephant. They still won't know its colour. I'll just say, eat your vegies too.

Here is another point of view. The Geological Map of the World, compiled by the French, second edition 2000, may be purchased on line. It speaks volumes. Rocky planets close to the Sun were robbed of hydrogen during formation, ultimately lacking gravity to hold hydrogen and helium in their atmospheres. These molecules move at escape velocity on Earth. Pluto freezes it as do comets and outer moons. Therefore, the water on our neighbours is scanty, on Venus as fuming sulphuric, and on mars a little ground water. Life on earth began in fissures, hot springs and pools. Cyanobacteria were the first prokaryotes to exploit CO2 and create O2, a significant evolutionary step, around 4000MYA. By 3900MYA stromatolites began a long domination of the shallow seas up to the Cambrian 550MYA or just prior. As today, they lived in highly saline conditions only bacteria can tolerate, seas that took 3500MY to almost cover the earth, in a seascape dotted with volcanoes and similar tectonic features. Protons from the solar wind, some from intergalactic space as cosmic 'rays', were burned by the O2 and O3 combined with the particle energies. Auroras, not well understood, most likely are significant water producers. Minerals released from rocks and dissolved included lower salts of today's ore metals, largely as banded iron formations. Rains as far back as 3900MYA had accumulated the salts in one great worldwide Dead Sea. The crust slowly thickened by miles, thoroughly water cooled. The lithosphere slag that floated on the stardust thermite contains only traces of the core metals, but while lighter elements rose, heavy radioactive elements sank, and have been concentrating, like fuel rods pushed into a reactor. The dissipation of generated heat being compromised, rifts appeared, like the Great Rift Valley in Africa, or the Jordan Valley in the present. The latter is a continuation of the Indian Ocean mid ocean ridge, which almost separated Africa and Asia. The resulting Precambrian chasms, miles deep and sealed below with basalt, drained salty water, and the world became fresh water lakes, marshes and streams. The Cambrian explosion began in the fresh waters, and grazers evolved to largely eliminate the hundreds of miles of stromatolites, that had oxygenated to atmosphere. Prokaryotes symbiotically entered the 1000 times larger evolving eukaryotes to become chloroplasts and mitochondria, efficiently exploiting the oxygen environment in fresh water. In a few paleontological ages the Carboniferous saw club mosses 40 meters high creating 30% atmospheric oxygen. These 'trees' fell in swamps and so did not rot, but became our coal resources. All the early life forms of the Palaeozoic were, and still are today, fresh water creatures. Climate was very wet and quite temperate, shown by a series of ice ages. (Consider the surviving Ginkgo which gave the butterfly its shape and lifestyle of poisonous foods. Early reptiles, presumed to require cooling, had sails to navigate a watery world). High O2 levels meant high water production. Through the Permian, the growing earth vented through massive lava flows, giant volcanoes, and massive rifting, and several mass extinctions preceded the greatest of all time, so far, for planet Earth. Two vast rifts joined around what is now the far side of the Moon. The Earth went pear-shaped, and dragged the centre of mass of the system into space. 245MYA the Palaeozoic Era ended with the extinction of 95% of species, and 50% of groups, and coral reefs did not reappear for millions of years. While many theories have been advanced to explain this event, none have so far been free of anomalies. Surviving individuals, from dark corners of the world, restarted evolution for the Mesozoic, with very different Triassic creations. The jigsaw of continents today surrounded a globe 55% of the present radius (with a hole in the Pacific). But the largest ocean's mid-ocean ridge borders the land which rose on that side, and sank on the other about 10500 years ago, apparently unstable because of the throwing off of the Moon. This was the last ice age, and to many cultures from the Hopi Indians to the Australian Aborigines, a flood. The launching has preserved the angular momentum with distance, so that the mares (seas) on the near side are all we can see from Earth. These flooded with lava after larger meteor strikes, the crust here being only 245MY old. The 4600MY old far side is more like 20 miles thick, and even the largest meteor strike in the solar system, topologically discerned, did not mare. It is pockmarked with craters and well hidden. Theia may be a myth (contrary to Theia of 'The Sorry Tale'), and if so, we can expect 20 times more meteor strikes than presently calculated. Chevrons from prehistoric tsunamis support a far greater rate. The release of pressure from the Earth saw further rifting halted until the world began to flood again into the Jurassic, rifting beginning all our present oceans, and giant semi aquatic sauropods dominating the earth. As the oceans grew wider, the drier Cretaceous began, and many giants became marine animals. Some of these may still exist in lochs and in the Southern Ocean, especially if a Supernova caused the KT extinction. A dead plesiosaur was very likely that netted off NZ in 1977. Again, mathematically, volume determines cooling rate inversely, decreases to the cube or radius. Heat dissipation at the surface increases to the square, as does cross section to the solar wind. There is no rock on the ocean floor other than basal and sediment . All Prejurassic rock is on the continents or under limestone where land has been submerged by pole shift (eg: The Bahamas sporting submarine stalagmites and the Nullarbor edging a limestone sea cliff, The Great Australian Bite). Evidence revealed by The Geological Map of the World indicates an exponential growth rate of the planet since the Jurassic, as it was discovered that ocean basins could be magnetically dated. Earth Expansion was covered by Scientific American, and the theory presented as Tectonic Expansion is championed by Australian Dr. Maxlow, whose articles may be found in Nexus. Refinements of the theory beyond geology (mathematics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, physics, palaeontology, etc. but not very specialised, life is too short) are my own. A pneumonic for the Palaeozoic Era might be "Can Other Scenarios Demonstrate Consistent Proof?"

Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions. (Albert Einstein) I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the human mind. (In stone around a Washington Shrine, by Thomas Jefferson) If one purges the Judaism of the prophets and Christianity as Jesus Christ taught it of all subsequent additions, especially those of the priests, one is left with a teaching which is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity. The pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, an almost fanatical love of justice and the desire for personal independence – these are the features of the Jewish tradition which make me thank my stars that I belong to it. Those who are raging today against the ideals of reason and individual liberty and are trying to establish a spiritless state slavery by brute force rightly see in us their irreconcilable foes. History has given us a difficult row to hoe; but so long as we remain devoted servants of truth, justice and liberty, we shall continue not merely to survive as the oldest of living peoples, but by creative work to bring forth fruits which contribute to the ennoblement of the human race, as heretofore. (Albert Einstein) Psychology will accept astrology without further restriction because it represents the sum total of knowledge of the human psyche from antiquity. (Carl Jung) Halley : Sir Isaac, how can someone as learned as you believe such foolishness as astrology? Newton : Because Sir, I have studied it and you have not.

Give it time to digest, grasshopper.

Why did the "big bang theory" not drop into the "black hole" discovery. Now an accelerating universe requires quite another look. Matter and antimatter repel. (Einstin did not live to see the discovery of the antiproton (negatron), and the positron alone was little clue to the gravitational dipole. But this being the case (or they would not separate where they can be created, in intergalactic space), our symmetry lacks this: an antiphoton (currently misconstrued in function from its invention for beta rays energies) is misnamed the neutrino. These only interact with matter gravitationally, in the opposite direction to photons, and are the elusive dark energy, which radiates from "black holes". So also the antigalactic clusters are the "dark matter". And so antigalaxies have "white holes". And the photon, and its antiparticle, are also recycled in an eternal universe (since creation, we can not reach the present since infinity BC). That's pretty symmetric, 100%. We need another look, in this light, at Hoag's Object, Barred Galaxies and those with active cores emmitting gamma rays, and Gamma Ray Bursts themselves, for better explanations, or any at all. Also, with essentially three fundumental (stable) particles and their antiparticles, another look at beta radiation is in order, our galactic core being an antigamma ray source involved in radioactivity, again by photon antiphoton anihilation (or rather materialisation). We need to consider therefore that mass is positive or negative relative to the energy (light or dark) in the equation for the limiting density, where frequency becomes zero, at the black or white hole boundaries, f = f_0(1 - Gm/rc^2). Where light energy frequency becomes zero (relative to an observer), dark energy doubles. I believe that the general relativity equivalence of gravitational mass and inrtial forces is a direct result of the behaviour of fluxes of both light and dark energy, maintaining the universal account books, so to speak. Another attraction of this theory is that the law of conservation of mass/energy does not ever break down, and the universe is, since time, eternal. However, we lose the dismissal of Cronos, who is once again essential. Concerning materialistic science, I don't think He was ever legitimately dismissed. Like "Total Recall" or "The Matrix" suggest, indistinguishable theories are essentially identical. "God does not play dice, and science can not prove or disprove that the senses are a psychic phenomenon. Equivalently, the universe may not have an existence independent of the observer." I paraphrase Albert Einstein, and am sure such insights as these had much to do with his revelations. We are just electric force. E = mc^2.