"Stop making sense, blue-green", 2022, acrylic on canvas, 145 x 120 cm.
Part of the freedom of an artist's life is that he can paint without wanting to make sense. This is my way of treating myself when there is too much intentionality, around me. In doing so, I make use of the presets that are created by marbling the canvas. I choose a canvas with blotches, which were created on a large water surface of floating paint. On water the marbling paints always find a balance of tension. This is a guarantee that there is balance hidden at the level of the composition, the harmony of the fluid. By auto painting, for example, by highlighting the upper edge of stains, something of this harmony lying outside of me appears. This is surprising and liberating even for the painter. "Blue-green" does not want to convey any sense either.
Outside is war, at home is stress, so the frog wants to go back to the safe well hole. I escape into the world of thought, that what we see we must understand anew. You who are not on the trail of the second wanderer, you deny yourselves a happiness, a treasure. What can it bring to let such a fundamental insight sink in? A new Copernican turn! Everything becomes new, even the old. The frog exaggerates, we don't have to grow so fast into infinity, but about every ten days we double our steps, our size, without noticing it. Of the little flowers by the wayside, we see only those that have also doubled. The earth under us and the yardstick have gone along. This cannot be left to the professional physicists, they fall back too easily into their learned ways. - That's enough for today.
2022.3.24 Understanding expansion.
The second walker (B) is talking to the first (A). Will they understand each other? There must be points of contact. In the first step, B sees a bit more than A, but they both experience the flowers passing by the wayside. A thinks that B sees the world as if he were running. B has to explain to him that he is not simply faster, but steadily moving as if from walking to running. B now understands that for B the flowers are not only passing faster, but increasingly faster. When both take the second step, the relationship already becomes more difficult. A has now reached the second meter, the florets on the side of the path have passed by evenly. B is at the point 1.5 +1.5 +0.75 = 3.75 meters. The two are already separated by 1.75m. B recognizes how the little flowers become faster and also smaller. The two can still talk, over the distance no problem. However, from A's point of view, B has grown, because he must have grown to the same extent as his stride length has increased. After 31 steps everything looks dramatically different. B has now walked a distance like 68 times around the earth, while A has only managed 31 meters on his scale. In order to understand how it is for a walker who manages 68 times the circumference of the earth with one step, he can no longer rely on his own experience. With a mental pull-up, he reaches the idea of how B can no longer experience the little flowers by the wayside, but only things that can keep up with him.
So, how are we supposed to talk about the world? The frog thinks there is no point in harmonizing the two worlds. You can't talk about B with the measure of A and B can't see the little flowers from the beginning anymore, they have become smaller than dust grains. Can A navigate at all in the world of B's conditions? If B provides the correct description of the world, then A with his frame of reference cannot exist at all. A would have to be like B. We would have a B-shaped A standing there stupidly with his inherited scale. He would have to experience contradictions and paradoxes of all kinds, much like the standard theory of today. The frog thinks that even stubborn people can understand the facts, they would have to call this expansion theory, the real relativity theory, not the one of Einstein, the one of the frogs.
The frog practices the true world view. The world of the 2nd walker, to be able to make these increasingly big steps forever, everything that presents itself to his senses must expand at the same time. A world which calculates itself differently could not be perceived. Strange, but, if his last step was 10 km, then one meter in his world is 5 km, measured by the fictitious yardstick of the 1st walker. That means, in the real world of the frogs there are only relative values, because what measured 5 km one moment ago, has already become vanishingly small the next moment. And because this is the case since the beginning of the universe, the only thing that is eternally unchangeable is a calculation. The attentive well frog has internalized this, his problem are the human listeners, because their conceptual apparatus presupposes secretly a constant reality which makes now no more sense. For example the speed of light: when we are at the hundredth step, the tired, absolutely thought light doesn't come along any more. This is embarrassing for the smart people. Einstein must sacrifice Newton! There is no meaningful translation of frogology into standard theory.
2022.3.5. Theory of Perception: the Illusion.
Expansion, ammunition against the enemies of reason.
Expansion theory is an astonishing concept because it becomes teaching material for kindergartens what modern physics seems incomprehensible. In physics everyone talks about the “unified” theory, actually about the merging of quantum and relativity theory. To this day this has not been successful, the gravitation does not fit at all.
MM‘s "The Final Theory" is a proposed solution that elegantly deals with the obstacles of science. The expansion theory is an alternative concept within physics that does not try to bring together two very preliminary theories, but rather to further think Galileo's and Einstein's principle of equivalence. It was like this: In the elevator you cannot know whether it is accelerating or whether you are being attracted by gravity. The weight varies with the pressure from below. Then there is the insane fact that on the moon, the ostrich feather falls to the ground as quickly as the hammer. A properly understood theory of relativity should have no problem realizing that what is moving moves relative to something. So it is permissible to assume that it is the lunar soil that moves relative to the two things. The astronaut lets go of the objects, the ground rushes towards the freely floating objects, if they land at the same time, that is the proof that they have not been moved. The hammer has more mass, it would have had more inertia if it had been pushed. The astronaut wrongly considers himself static, he stands in the speeding elevator and lets the objects fall as if from a moving train. Somewhat unusual, but not a crime for scientists. That the celestial bodies expand so that our weight results from it is a long story, but also not really heretical. Atoms are so bulky things, each a powerful bomb that never goes off. It happens that they exert some pressure on the environment, even if it is only to maintain the spherical shape. When I stand on the moon, I have a rod of atoms under me, from the center of the moon to me, all of which naturally press something on the neighbor. A kind of domino effect is created. The outermost atoms are noticeably pushed radially outwards. In short, the rate of fall of the hammer and feather is the measure of the rate of expansion of the moon. My lunar body weight therefore depends on the radius of the moon. Mass does not matter, there is no attraction.
I am not campaigning for a sectarian idea of an MM, but for the further development of the concept of relativity and it makes sense and fun to ride on such a plausible basic assumption. Of course, there is inevitably a kink in the world experience. Imagine that you no longer believe that there is an invisible force that pulls you to the ground, but that you feel yourself in the skywardly jet of Einstein's elevator. Everything is new up there, it wasn't the mass or the space-time bulge that created my weight, but the acceleration of the earth's surface because a lot of atoms are pressing. I experience the accellerating pressure, which I love in the car, as demystification, as progress. With that I then re-explain the world in effect, but such a claim does not arise like a Dadaist quirk or out of psychopathic arrogance, but a legitimate search for knowledge in all modesty is involved. On the other hand, it is unreasonable to have to believe in a force that has never been measured since it was invented. I try to make it clear to myself what to understand. What kind of delusion I am subject to when I sit as a growing thing on a growing world and see growing things?
2022.2.15. Thank you for your kind words, Fred. It's very rewarding to hear from readers who have been so powerfully impacted by the book and theory -- as was my wish in sharing my understanding with the world.
I clicked through to your website and even just the first few paragraphs were so well conceived that I immediately thought about a simple experiment with profound implications that you may enjoy (forgive me if I've already mentioned this to you in prior exchanges):
A simple Slinky spring toy can conclusively prove Expansion Theory and disprove Newton and Einstein's gravitational theories. Stretch it out on the tabletop by pulling on either end with your two hands and, of course, the coils all stretch apart equidistantly since the two opposing end forces will spread uniformly across the Slinky.
And, by the same reasoning and physics, Newtonian gravity should have the same effect if you hold the Slinky with one hand and let gravity pull down vertically in the other direction -- again these two opposing forces must spread uniformly across the Slinky .. BUT THEY DON'T. Instead there is a non-uniform distribution of coil spacing from top to bottom. Newton disproved. Einstein too, since he made every effort to ensure his theory was always 'backward compatible' with Newton.
But return to the tabletop and accelerate the Slinky with a uniform acceleration from only one end -- now the same non-linear coil distribution occurs as the amount of mass dragged along varies, per F=ma of course.
Finally, consider that the vertical hanging Slinky had the same F=ma physics, since it was only being accelerated upward by your hand from one end as the planet expanded below. Simple. Literal child's play. Proven. QED.
The frog is pleased, he anticipates the consequences of his great insight. In the world of the second wanderer - and frogs live in it - the heavenly bodies are not there where hurling and or attracting forces throw them, but they appear where they stand relative to the next. The sky of the frogs knows no forces.
The second wanderer does not make his geometrical jumps voluntarily, he lives in the accelerating elevator, because already the building blocks of his world, the atoms, grow constantly. The frog would have liked to know how such an atom is built, so that it creates this expanding world. He is afraid that scholars will deny him the competence; "what can a little amphibian have understood", but this is a diary in the well hole. Nobody needs to read it.
An atom, which is as big in the frog world today as yesterday, has grown along in the right proportion. If that lasts eternally, then only because a mechanism in the atom provides for the fact that stability in the dynamic system comes about. That means, also in the smallest it is the relations which are stable, not the matter. And they are very stable.
I understand that people have not let the fountain frog story come up for 4000 years. Atoms are tiny for frogs, too, only after thirty steps, if the wanderer would have raced 27 times around the earth, the atom would be huge, too, if one could measure it at the halted reference frame. Frogs can't do that either, they only know if such wanderers are possible, then because already the atoms expand accordingly. The model of the frogs sees a nucleus in the atom and electrons whizzing around, similar to that of the humans, only that there are no orbiting orbits, but parabolic hops. The nucleus expands with the impact of a few thousand electrons, - it is allowed to do so in the atom -, if a free electron comes nearby, it bounces off, only to be caught up again by the rapidly growing nucleus. This is the mechanism in the atom. What we see from the outside is the sum of all bouncing turning points, a small ball in the world of the second wanderer, another sensory illusion, Fibonacci sends his regards.
2022.2.26. The fountain frog and the moon.
I flee into the world of the fountain frog, outside the war has begun. Only the moon remains calm and draws its course from horizon to horizon. He would hurry away from us in disgust if he could. He does not do that, because we frogs hold him with our world view. As a reminder: we frogs live in the world of the second wanderer, who would come 27 times around the earth with 30 steps, but who would not experience it that way. He would walk on a world that would grow just as rapidly as his steps grew larger. Wherever he would stand, the earth would grow under his feet, so that he would see the moon as if from the elevator. The moon would emerge from the horizon below, travel across the sky and descend, because that's what it would look like from the dynamic frog elevator. In doing so, the moon would do nothing except move away and grow. The wanderer would experience the same everywhere on the globe: the moon would rise and set, because the observer would be pushed skyward. Does this make sense? The moon orbits the earth, after all, for the sake of appearances. If it would really have to be held in the flyby, so enormous forces would be necessary that the whole universe would be tired long ago.
2022.2.22 The mystery play and the perspective of the frogs.
Harald Lesch, a physics professor, sings for the two hundredth time about the four basic forces, how they had originated at the big bang. Is this science? From the frog perspective these are theological subjects. Even if the people consider their assertions as physics, for our frog this is creationist thought. They may somehow declare the Creator God idea disproved, but the whole context they seek and formulate is a theological discourse. The standard science is quite obviously in the process of supplying material to the Christian pagan force thinking, where four forces do the work. Our frog wonders if the issues of the people make sense at all, if there is a cognitive advantage in believing in disembodied forces and energies, or if everyone is still caught up in a mystery play with ritual procedure, serving a feudal cult that makes them unfree.
2022.2.19. THE METAPHYSICS OF FROGS.
Why frogs and humans live in different worlds. The tale of the two walkers. Two walkers make 30 steps each. The first takes 30 times one meter and makes 30 meters - clear. The second makes each step twice as big as the previous one, after doing that 30 times, he is how far? 27 times around the earth! That is incomparably much. There he must experience an enormous acceleration, there the landscape races past, there the third step is already eight meters, there the thought play becomes so not realistic. So the second walker lives in a different world, in which he takes 30 constant steps, just like the first one. He experiences each previous step as one and counts one to it. The distance, which would go 27 times around the earth, the second wanderer experiences as 30 times 1+1 events, Thus the task is to be mastered: he creates 30 steps in a world, in which the last step is called 1+1, still two meters, but measured against that of the first wanderer is dramatically large. only the acceleration would result in a constant pressure in the back. Experientially, he would live in a world that obeys the same algorithm as his steps increase. The frame of reference of the first wanderer would have to appear to him almost unimaginably tiny, no longer existent. The world of experience of the second wanderer now shows things and distances as having remained the same, when they have grown just as accelerated as he has.
In the end, the famous apple remains the same size while it falls, but it becomes faster and faster. Frogs now understand that Newton's apple was not pulled by any force, but something happened in the reference world of the second wanderer. If Newton and Einstein had recognized this, we would be closer to the truth today. The frog exaggerates, we don't really gain that much with each step, but if it's a millionth, then that's enough to reconceive gravity. The world of the first walker is the illusion - says the fountain frog.
It's raining, the air is humid, our well frog sits up to its neck in the water and thinks about life and people. “You humans believe that everything that is is subject to entropy, that everything becomes colder, desolate, darker, flatter, less structured, just because it exists. Life is a very, very improbable miracle for you, best explainable with a creator god who intervened unnaturally. Evolution, life that has been very successful in bringing about complexities in an unfriendly environment since ancient times, deserves a more joyful theory of genesis.
Our well frog wondered how improbable life really is. Basically, where something falls apart, it must have come together beforehand. If this building principle were not stronger than that of decay, then there would be nothing to start from. You humans, especially you ex-Christians, should be on your guard. Christianity emerged as a doomsday sect. Some of the people who open their mouths at your place are destructors by profession. "
Back to life. “If Frosch looks closely, he suspects that what man can do is sometimes already inherent in the inorganic. There are the capabilities of the water. We frogs are amphibians, we love water! So water: it has not learned what to do, it behaves like water in every universe. For example: water washes, water makes electricity, makes hexagonal surfaces, makes crystals that break stone, snowflakes, white clouds, steam, gas. When it rests, when nothing pulls on it, it forms a ball, when it flows, then in a spiral, then it makes sloshing-sloshing streets, rotating eddies and standing waves. Water forms organs long before it is used by life. "
The amphibian wonders when and how chemistry began to replicate itself, because that is certainly part of life. It must be in the nature of the water. From the beginning: When a drop hits a surface, it splatters into a six-armed thing, analogous to a snowflake. Water sorts the dirt that it splatters into six equal arms, in some places over millions of years, layer by layer, some washes away, some becomes slimy, some dries, some can stand. What is permanent is therefore already present six times at its core. The water systematically arranges all impurities and transported substances in this sense. But the expansion that causes molecular chains that are elongated to effectively increase in length more that things speed up relative to each other. Could it be that innumerable coincidences, all deposited sixfold by the water, create the one coincidence that becomes our family tree? ”The frog finds the croaking too long. Think for yourself.
8/26/2021 frog doubt
The frog wonders whether there aren't real, acceptable reasons that immediately prohibit the idea of expansion, should it ever arise. Surely it cannot be that it is only the mechanisms of membership that prevented even Einstein from discovering expansion. How can mankind get very close for millennia, recognize the principle of equivalence, advance empiricism and then suddenly hook the mark where only two and two have to be added together. About the chi, prana, attraction, spacetime, dark energy, God and what is more, all deliberately misunderstand that gravity must be a domino effect of expanding atoms. In the evening, tired, the frog would write that the many arch-wise people pissed their pants just before the toilet. Fresh and fresh in the morning, he then doubts whether he is allowed to rummage around in the value system of science as an ethnologist.
Unfortunately, I can't think of anything that would be a total killer, with which I could drive the frog down from its point of view once and for all. On the contrary, it is the frog that convinces me.
The frog writes: “I'm in, I write smarter than I am, it writes me. I am proud to be one of those who went through a real metamorphosis. You humans leave that to the shamans, priests and professors. From the outside, as a frog, I don't see too much transformation in you though. In doing so, you could work towards metamorphosis by doubting your basic confessions. I'm slowly getting angry, every time I stick my head out of the fountain hole, I'm run over by someone who is defending his territory. This time it was almost a steamroller that rolled over me. It was Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in Physics, who died a month ago. He managed the "partial" unification of two of the four basic forces, popularized the standard theory that seeks the UNIFICATION of all forces in one law. So among frogs we would say that if the common aspects of four misleading statements were found, the whole thing has not yet been done a favor. Weinberg has admitted that the union "is not yet in sight, that gravity is still outside". He had the history of ideas in view like no other, but he never took the one step to acknowledge that out in the vacuum of space nobody pulls anything. He never questioned the idea that disembodied beings, energies and forces, act on matter. He was certainly one of the highest in the cult. "
The poor well frog continues to write in his fountain hole: “It is not at all about a unified, but an alternative theory. This is completely inconsistent with the standard theory. If I were human, I would have to completely unlearn, from Aristotle to Weinberg. If we think “unification”, we implicitly assume that all the inherited ballast remains valid, so that humans do not have to learn anything, the formulas become even more complicated. The alternative, on the other hand, is simple and elegant; Frogs love that. As a frog, I wonder how you force all the wonderful empirical data so obviously into a cultic concept. You create so many contradictions that Frog worries whether it is still healthy. "" It was many millions of years ago when we frogs were stuck in a similar swamp, our life as tadpoles had so limited our horizons that we were radically rethinking - had to become amphibious, etc. We did it so radically that we also needed a new shape on the outside. Actually we are disguised tadpoles. "(A joke among frogs).
You thought wrong, said the frog to the people.
Our well frog was among people again and once more he is amazed at how they straighten out the big issues. How did the great gaps in the universe come about? People believe that since an assumed Big Bang everything has broken apart, which explains the large empty spaces. For frogs, on the other hand, the sky is itself purifying. Everywhere and always stars explode, clouds of dust arise and they condense again into stars. People suspect an attraction behind it, although everything seems to be drifting apart and no one knows how to apply this pull over space and time. Frogs help each other with an opposite idea, they know about expansion. For them everything just grows by itself, millions of light years far and long. Everything floats next to each other almost endlessly in a vacuum, large chunks, gas and dust. Over time, densities, new stars, planets, solid and gaseous, form and spaces grow. People say: That was gravity, it does it by pulling everything together somehow.
Our well frog does not like to be the victim of an invisible pulling force, he sees it differently. “If everything keeps getting thicker, it seems to us frogs, sitting on one of these growing things, as if the next one is approaching, even though it is only growing. In the end, everything in the neighborhood ends up on us. That happens to everything in our dust cloud, every thing ends up on a neighbor at some point. After a long time the sky is swept empty and clear. All elements of our dust cloud are gathered on our thing, the earth. We feel that we are still getting thicker as pressure from below, as our weight. Gravitation is an effect of expansion and not a cause of the whole. People believe fairy tales, that's what it means. It's good that we frogs don't have hair. "
Basically I want to write: Mark McCutcheon: it's a shame the way the world pretends he never wrote his “Final Theory”! The professional world is careful to overlook this book. The book does not belong in the cult. Initiates have a confession that they believe in forces as existing beings. Because such professors are so convinced of themselves, they become propagandists of a cult. Universities administer the legacy of the imperial cult like the Catholic Church; this is what we are dealing with in university teaching. The robes, gowns, the initiation rites, the titles, the assistantships, the strict hierarchy, it's the old cult, alive in a kind of sect. “The four forces came into the world”, is one of the creeds and knowledge of rulership. For that one would kill if necessary. I know you, servants of the cult! The cult and sect of scholars: I have to get used to the thought for a moment! For two thousand years the Christian-Jewish sects have been adapted to the respective civil societies. Whoever really pursues true knowledge is screened out, sidelined as deviants. The highly valued values such as curiosity, empiricism and belief in progress are institutionally framed by narrow premises given by the cult and queried to check adherence to the line. I know what I'm talking about, I struggled at various universities up to the age of thirty, many exams, diplomas, the Dr. rerum politicarum acquired. However, I had to promise the doctoral supervisor that I would not go into teaching. I had written about the fundamentals of sociology from the perspective of misunderstanding research.
The well frog and the world theory.
Gravitation is not a force, but an illusion that we well frogs are subject to.
Now, in the early morning, I remember Harald Lesch, who said about the history of the universe that the first force that arose after the Big Bang was gravity, “the weakest of all forces”. This is what everyone who studies physics learns. Unfortunately, there is a lot about the picture that is unacceptable. There is a birth taking place.
Now, from the point of view of the new theory, gravity is a geometric effect that occurs as things grow and see the world. The effect must occur in every universe. The film that the apple makes as it falls is fundamentally different from that of Newton, who sees the apple coming. Whether or not things have a picture apparatus, it is given to them that they stand in a relative relationship to their neighbor. If they do not interpenetrate, every thing is defined by the distances and is unique - in every conceivable universe. We humans are things with sense organs that make our own experience possible. We always and inevitably have the perspective of the one being.
Everyone their own well frog!
If something moves somewhere, the values change in every frog. Everyone can only make their own film. Growing things are even in motion in each of these films if no one moves from the spot, they move relative to one another.
The term gravity, understood as a force that attracts, wants to summarize all subjective facts, all of which are based on the frog's perspective. This must lead to misunderstandings because there is no universe in which something like this can be done, observed or even measured. So it goes without saying that gravitational pull has never been measured since Newton. It does not exist, we meet in social mode. Everyone checks everyone, but nobody checks everything from the outside. The idea of pulling force is a logical mistake by a poorly observing well frog. Nothing pulls on the spherical moon, nothing on the water droplets, the frog should actually have noticed and considered that.
Soon we are looking at two and a half millennia of well frogs, everyone thinks that the real problem is that they only see a tiny section of the world and want to get an idea of the whole. If he had a better point of view, he could see everything. Nowhere do I find the idea that everyone is naturally a well frog.
Zhung Zi, “The true book of the southern blooming land”, 4th century. Before Ch. Translation Richard Wilhelm, Ed. Michael Holzinger, ISBN978 - 148071007, Düsseldorf 1972, pp. 188 - 190
The original Brunnenfrosch story: The turtle visits the well frog and it's all about humiliating a submissive student with a parable. He tries to explore the world with too small a view. The pupil runs away in the end, the fate of the frog does not matter. The Romans then think that the frog dreams of being as big as an ox. For the Buddhists, this becomes the story of how the well frog comes to the sea and bursts its head because the size overwhelms it. The arrogance of those who know is always a theme. I ask myself whether the parable ever gives the answer that the world is always experienced as a well frog, even when the horizon is huge. Zhung Zi may know that, but he kills the disciple, ex cathedra, and does not reveal anything about the impossibility of seeing through the eyes of another. All Well Frog stories are about initiation. The Chinese and Indians are great masters in this.
My well frog story wants something completely different. I don't want to shame anyone or accept anyone into a brotherhood, and I don't want to show power from above, I want to say that in every conceivable universe, every conceivable perception apparatus belongs to a well frog. Each body only has its own surfaces and sensory organs. Everything that seems to become visible beyond that is derived knowledge, communicatively, semantically acquired. What the well frog can perceive always has a frog's perspective, is distorted. Social reality is a construct whose meaning owes more to the grammar of thoughts than to the experiences of the individual.
I have to rephrase the well frog story. We have long since stopped fetching water from deep wells and we no longer hide in caves down in the well when the Huns come. But we still have that narrow view when it comes to matters of cosmic proportions.
The Tale of the wise Well Frog.
Once upon a time there was a well frog who lived deep in a well hole. All his life he had only had a round circle of light above him, where he could observe changing phenomena . The sun and moon passed by, raindrops fell and sometimes an apple. Our frog understood that there had to be more than what was available down in the deep hole. There had to be something that was causing movement; invisible meta frogs, perhaps, powers he could imagine.
Usually such a frog is wrong, and the narrator takes the opportunity to announce that everything he thinks down there cannot be true. But this frog does everything right, he lives with his self-made world theory. He tries philosophy and the exact sciences as he understands them without suspecting what is being thought outside, beyond the opening of the fountain. He is happy and content and croaks his song full of lust for life.
Outside, a beautiful lady frog hears its tenor and is spellbound by its tones. Every evening she sits on the edge of the fountain and listens to the chants until one evening, driven by her hormones, she dares to jump into the dark unknown. A happy time follows. The frogs do what adult frogs do, they cuddle and make love until they are exhausted. In the moments after that, our male tries to explain to the female what he has understood about the world. She, on the other hand, wants to win him over to the world up there, a world with sun-warmed pond water, where tadpoles splash around and Nobel prizes are awarded for croaking that moves the world. Our frog suspects that it is not fit for the outside world. What she describes has no correspondence in his view of the world.
This story has a happy ending, because while the two are waiting for a flood and making love, they have enough time to refine their knowledge. They adjust their language, yes, they recognize that the sun and moon pass by, not because they circle around the earth, but because the frogs circle around the stars. The narrator is enthusiastic, he calls it the Copernican turn; what a genius to understand that the sun rises and sets because we move. The two enjoy the new understanding and do not notice how rising groundwater is driving them close to the edge of the well. Suddenly the little light hole has become an open sky and she happily hops on the edge of the fountain. He follows her and experiences for the first time the view into the wide world.
The well frog, who has been downstairs for so long and, above all, alone, comes up to where there are frogs croaking in competition. He can’t believe what’s going on around here. While she lays her thousand eggs in the warm pool, he sets out to observe how everything that is self-evident is twisted, how folklore, cult and churches prevent people from thinking along. He fears that corruption can buy anything, even the thoughts and feelings of the brightest minds. In the loneliness he had adopted strict rules of thought, especially logic and reason. Now he realizes that he has landed in a strange age. Humans live in a high-tech world that is neither appropriate to the species nor well founded. They have created a material culture through trial and error that they try to understand with many absurd views.
What should our frog do? The narrator asks himself. Are the stupid frogs in the way of their own welfare? He would have to warn them. It's not too late yet. The happiness and health of the frogs is important to him. Above all, the frogs need common commandments that are true in themselves and in relation to nature. - In the end, the narrator lets a truck run over our frog.
July 11, 2021
My well frog is still calling me. I can't let him die, he gets up like the coyote in the comic. But he is frightened and escapes back into his well hole. There he writes down what he has understood. He is frightened because he has been run over, but also because he has discovered a principle in nature that he does not find in other frog thinkers. How far does he have to go to think freely?
The frog was then often hit flat, but his diaries in the dark hole of the well were saved. The narrator is therefore allowed to give insights into a frog that he invented. He is surprised by the grandiose thoughts of his creation. The frog recognizes itself as more perceptive of relativity. There is only relative distance in the world of the frogs. The correct view is when everything makes completely different films of reality relative to one another and there is nowhere a frame of reference. An interpretation of what happened is difficult, almost impossible, if there is nowhere a frame of reference.
The narrator recognizes wisdom in his frog. Our frog lived with a few basic assumptions that allowed him to take a stand and sort through the views of others. Right at the top of the natural laws was an insight that said, “What moves forever must be a calculation, in nature everything that is pushed comes to a standstill. If frogs experience consistency, that's what they have calculated. They have accumulated sensory data over time, actually creating a dwell time in the frog cosmos. The world can be observed in the now; if this now has a duration, it is always the result of a compilation. But since every now has a duration, no matter how short, all perception is the subjective mental achievement of a well frog. "
And then it says in the usual stilted manner of expression: “The longer the observed object is to be viewed, the clearer the effect becomes that the many relative data form into spirals. Should our frog brains be playing tricks on us? Does the frog have to allow for so many periods of time when looking at the stars that they form spirals? I look at the galaxies and imagine that I line up so many images on the timeline up to the spirals that the relatively aproaching stars appear in their arrangement. I look at the history of the star positions piled up. From a frog's perspective, the organs of perception must provide an illusion over time. So we not only look back millions of years to the spirals of that time, but on top of it we also see the entire history of the relative distances between the stars and the frogs. "
Now our narrator is pressed against the wall. It becomes difficult for our frog to desperately try to propagate his insights, i.e. the narrator himself is in need of explanation. How is the unworldly well frog supposed to explain to the corporate frogs that they actually all grow constantly, but that they don't notice it because everything grows at the same time. The narrator, like god, sees how the stars and the frogs all expand, how the distances in empty space become ever shorter and shorter. With the frogs, nobody notices how long everything has been growing because everything has remained in proportion. Our well frog tries to explain that the frog, which yesterday was 5 cm tall, would actually be 8 cm today, but that everything that everyone orientated themselves had also grown with it, so that the impression always arises that frogs are constantly 5 cm. Frogs have been part of the game for millions of years. Their heads should show galactic dimensions, but everyone still calculates their size back to those 5 cm. “That has consequences,” it is underlined in bold, “That gives strength for change. There is the source of a causation! "
It is finished! A well frog has developed a world theory. And the moral of the story: you have to isolate yourself from others if you want to understand the world. In my private life, as Fred Weidmann, I have the satisfaction of telling the well frog story with respect for the frog, and at the same time pushing my cause forward. It is my search for insight into how perception and communication really work that drives me. In addition to these raised topics, everyday life takes its course.
The social mode. The statistical eye.
April 25, 2020
I am still amazed at the new imagery of my worldview. Golden ratio, Fibonacci as a thought aid, acceleration that nothing and nobody pushes, it all smelled of mysticism. Now it is a simulable process and explains how everything can exist in infinity.
Questions about intellectual history:
Did Fibonacci, or Kepler, or Galileo, Einstein, or anyone before Mark McCutcheon understand relative acceleration as the principle of heavenly motion? Also as an effect of bodies growing past one another? It was only in the simulation that I understood the enormity of the new paradigm.
The computer simulation, seen introspectively: If I begin my existence as a body on the screen as tiny as a few pixels, but keep getting bigger because I always get the same percentage of pixels added, I fill the screen in a few seconds. At first I am not alone, in other places there are also bodies of pixels that populate the screen and grow just as steadily. So everyone is doing it and we should soon have an infinitely large screen to see what is happening. But to see what is happening to me beyond the surface shown, I have to switch to an observation mode without the geometric increase in size. Although mathematically we are still increasing steadily, we appear on the screen at a constant size. Since all bodies that are expanding in the same way are now visible, they show a kind of social behavior. Again and again those who seem to have stayed the same, in reality growing with me, will come closer to a neighbor. This creates a slingshot effect, accelerated approach with slowing when leaving the circuit. In terms of pixels, I'm many screens tall by the time I have made such an orbit. Actually, I should see a screen that has become huge. In order to manage so many additional pixels, I would need capacities that cannot be managed. This is where Fibonacci comes in. I give away the experience of expansion to proportionality in order to keep track of things, but I am accumulating capital (strength) by increasing the number of pixels in the background, which is always increasing, dramatically, in this world I am a ticking bomb.
I meet the other bodies in social mode, in relationship mode, but I have capacities of many terabytes that I don't show. It's the same for everyone in the sandpit and we have a capital of pixels, finally a world full of apparent energies and powers. Everything just got bigger in a bigger and bigger world of files. We only converted, statistically recorded the moment.
The "social mode" is a good term. Everything we know is presented in social mode and would really only grow stubbornly if it weren't for the relative events. To be huge would be all that could interest us living beings, if life itself did not convert the field of vision so that only the social mode can be experienced. Now that this can be seen so clearly in the computer animation, I hope that the expansion model will finally be understood. The computer community is growing and does not worry that they are still few. I myself am only looking for words that do justice to the miracle. Making the enduring in the now tangible is what the statistical eye does.
1st May 2020
these days I understood something again: we are all in social mode. May be we could do differently. Everyone's relative weakness is only apparent. As long as he is not disturbed, he is content with his strength. Through anger, people transcend the curse.
Space, According to Expansion Theory.
You asked me to read Mark McCutcheon again about galaxies, to check whether he writes that they are shrinking. I immediately contradicted that. What appears to us as a spiral is probably an optical illusion. Like the moon is passing by us undisturbed on his course, we are experiencing it in orbit around Earth. All expanding masses are in motion relative to each other. In the projection that our perceptive apparatus provides, everyone seems to be spinning around its nearest neighbor. Could it be that we see what's going on and also that galaxies are going backward in their expansion? MM does not write this. I first thought his theory could not explain shrinking. Space, as I understand it, is infinite inasmuch as it is always available. Where expansion creates narrowness, it is only relatively narrow among the players, the stars, solar systems and galaxies. Space is for background only. There is always room for everything that needs expansion. The space in the center of a galaxy is a bottomless pit, but not because it destroys matter in non-space, but because there is infinite space for the fast-paced activity on the edge of a supermassive black hole. Space is not an interacting agent. Turning space and time into puppeteers is just as much a game of confusion as Newton's well-known twist on inertia into attraction.
Now they have detected magnetic fields between galaxies and galaxy clusters. Without expansion theory these are only phenomena without much compelling causation. If I imagine the distances, as what is traversed by the expansion of electrons, then such intergalactic bridges are to be expected.
Let’s face it everything we see is not the generating processes themselves, but their effects on our three-dimensional image. In the very big, where matter comes together in galaxies, the shrinking of the electrons, which have spread in vacuum over all times, must play an important role. When the pressure becomes so great that all atoms become exploding atomic bombs, all the intra-atomic components are subject to expansion, but at the same time on the way to their subatomic state because of the external pressure. A supermassive black hole is the image of the zone where the suction is greater than the expansion. With that I have an answer for you, MM actually has a theory of shrinking, clearly described in the chapter on magnetism.
Two months after these lines, I thought again about space, because my insights did not seem completely coherent to me. The infinite space is nothing like an imaginable being. It is infinite in every possible way. The characteristics of infinite space must allow expansion eternally in a way that everything is always at the beginning. Nothing but the relative happening between matter and matter exists. Above all, space is not a carrier mass. The word leads to reification. Space is not the room in which I am sitting. Thanks to a simulation of the interactions of growing bodies in the computer sandbox, I realized that I had not understood expansion dramatically enough. The bodies have grown out of the screen in no time at all, geometrically infinite, not linear, but on a Fibonacci curve. They could not do that if space were not infinite always and everywhere. If calculations are adjusted so that all size increases are evened out, orbits occur. The popular explanations need dark matter and contracting forces that actually move the masses. I do not need to discuss that here, our universe would expose traces of the grip of forces and inevitably quickly tire of friction. But if everywhere at any point in the universe space is infinite, we can look at a computationally purified world in which the relatively constant bodies are distributed and they orbit with no push whatsoever. In the non-rectified perspective things simply grow, in the corrected view no power is needed to produce the effect of orbiting.
This redefines space, far from Newton's or Einstein's ideas. Space is the gigaplex infinite nothingness into which the ever expanding matter sinks in endlessly! We experience how everything is moving relative to its next object, but that's like the fractal output of countless arithmetic operations, a figure of the printed output. The confusion arises through the perspective. Two types of space we create. Either we mean the marbled universe with measurable real distances, or we are talking about that infinite vessel into which all matter has been able to expand since ever, never conflicting with the most infinite of all infinity.
With that, I think I'll answer how it can be that some galaxies are spinning so fast that the astronomers are left speechless. The solution of the universe is so simple, nothing moves. The movement of galaxies is pure illusion, an expression of our misguided perception. Lately, NASA published a photo of a comet, again clearly a chunk welded together from two parts. Difficult to understand how it happens that celestial bodies, which are spherical, have almost circular orbits, but the more shapeless the body, the more devious the trajectory. Oblong shapes expand faster in the longitudinal direction, apparently enough reason for an idiosyncratic comet career.
Gerhard POLLACK: It's been barely two months since I heard of his research for the first time. The keywords are: collectivity of molecules, hydrophilic surface and EZ, "Exclusion Zone". In these three terms is a free electricity plant. Together with a remark by Doctor KLINGHARDT it is clear that you only have to hang very many fins into the water to draw off electricity. These researchers describe the plus and minus charged molecules, a water battery. Heat and light create more honeycomb pattern, EZ, H3O2. The pattern does not allow inclusions, because of its high density of adherent electrons. Opposite to this zone, in the rest of the water, very few electrons intend to flow to the EZ area. This way one can directly extrude electricity from water. It does not need a hydrogen machine with all the dangers and energy losses. Evidently, the water of the EZ is also germ-free, without salt or microplastics. Water can do so much more.
Ten days after the discovery of EZ I specifically read MM, but I see that the description of electron swarms, which adhere differently to different surfaces, is not explanation enough. EZ is latticed and it grows more or less, properties it develops only as a society of molecules. I still need a spark of understanding.
Gerhard Pollack makes a big effort to explain where the perpetual motion machine gets its energy because he believes in the law of conservation of energy. But here the language of expansion theory is clearly in demand. The miracle in the behavior of water, which permanently forms a negatively charged EZ zone, is "energy for free" from the subatomic. It needs, like the magnet, no power source.
Such ingenious research is possible, even though physicists think wrongly. Now energy is endlessly available for free, even for the poorest of the poor. Newton, the ancient king’s finance advisor, has created an instrument of power with the dogma of energy conservation. A law of nature that is broken everywhere, is good for the ones in power. The physical process that creates and sustains the EZ is a domino effect according to expansion theory. It dawns on me that the rejection of expansion theory is a politically necessary move against free water and free electricity. Once again, stupidity is more dangerous than it looks, because in the background it serves higher goals, the preservation of power relations.
MM describes electricity without actually showing why the structure of a battery can harbour many or only a few electrons. Somehow, I miss the connecting idea to the grid of the EZ zone. If free electrons together with water molecules form a honeycomb pattern, it is because they do not have space in the hydrophilic material. Instead they find regular interaction patterns with water molecules. Although new atoms are not created there, the interfaces of hardly growing atoms with the light-like expanding electrons obviously restructure as honeycombs. Halfway atomic grid, halfway magnetic electron bridges in a quasi-stable zone of coexistence find themselves balanced together forming a pattern.
That's it, eureka, why should free electrons be attracted to water? They pelted at atoms in which their brothers are buzzing and trapped, with whom they would be identical if they could fit into the atom. Electrons shrink to the atomic surfaces, in huge numbers, as fast as they expand. They adhere to the atoms, find almost their subatomic format, but still have to expand into the extra-atomic space. They press themselves in 120 degree angles, probably because the water molecules dictate this shape. The exclusion zone is the area where pulling the rope between expansion and retrieval has become stuck on an atom. This then appears as a screened zone that leaves no room for differently structured molecules. The water molecules do not allow contamination, because in this state the expansion pressure never subsides. Outside the EZ, water molecules that are hardly occupied by free electrons accumulate. Pollack clearly states that the social behavior of water molecules has not been sufficiently studied. But it is these mixed societies of lazy atoms with light-fast electron swarms that create new structures. Energy without fatigue! The interfaces between the hydrophilic material and water are a perpetuum mobile. The thought inspires me. The interfaces of completely different dimensions create hybrid beings. Light does not only penetrate through water, it structures this matter. The process is as follows: Light comes as streams of electron clusters, sequences of regular spherical ornaments, accumulations of rapidly expanding electrons. In interaction with atoms, they not only bounce off, but also find their subatomic size there. If the angles of the clusters match those of the hydrophilic surface, patterns will form exclusion zones. In my opinion, this is not just a matter of a new aggregate state of water, but of a new class of matter. Structures that do not stick together like molecules, that are much more volatile, form instantly. They are crystal-like interfaces. I imagine that the socialized water molecules have room for a calculable number of adherent electrons. Thousands, because the surfaces of the atoms are not surfaces in a strict sense, but the infinite number of inflection points of the parabolic buzzing electrons inside the atoms. Adherence to non-existent surfaces can only mean that the resistance over time results from a composite structure, a honeycomb pattern of free and inner-atomic electrons in a state of equilibrium. A floating state of the electrons becomes lattice-shaped. Every battery works that way, I think. It not only has the liquid but also its EZ. Quasi crystals of free electrons and liquid matter are to be understood as social behavior in the realm of the very small. Of course, this idea presupposes the atomic theory of expansionism. But since all texts remain seated on the law of conservation of energy, this causation theory is the only one. And I think that magnetism generally creates such a mixed-matter zone: not molecules but molecules with free electron swarms form these colloidal crystals. MM calls it matter bridge, if I understand him correctly. He is the first to describe that electrons are dependent on size adjustment in the atomic space, so they stick somehow to atomic surfaces. It would be to explore, if not every surface forms its EZ. Pollack explains the formation of clouds with the negative charge for every drop of water. Since everything that keeps us alive is water, the topic of water actually suffices. I allow myself the additional idea that solid-state batteries would also have to store their high density of free electrons through regular patterns. The process of nature, to bring atoms and extra-atomic electrons into a quasi-stable form, is socialization in physics: a new form of matter is found, rather than a new aggregate state of water. Pollack can speak of H3 O2, which does not mean much, a fourth state of water. But that he has discovered a new kind of matter. Like Columbus did not want to understand that he had discovered a new continent, he cannot see the larger frame of his discovery. Colloidal crystals are nothing new in empirical science, an area of expertise and concepts. This intimidates me, they all see the trees that I do not even know, but I see the forest that they cannot see for the trees.
So please consider, dear reader: there is a new form of matter on the way. It will rid the world of the stranglehold of energy vendors. Clean water and free electricity worldwide will usher in the emphatic era. I sense an age where each and every family has a water battery from which they draw electricity and absolutely clean water, a box with a tap and a plug and nothing but a water inlet. You take them with you to heat, to power the washing machine, the vehicle engine or the Internet.
How to Imagine the Formation of Rings and the Moon.
Fred Weidmann, 9.9. 2019
I have to write it down: In the vacuum of space, there is no friction, no fatigue, no slowing down no change of direction. If the moon is not rotating relative to earth, it is because nothing has ever hit it so that it would spin. Nothing would have slowed it down until today. So the moon has a gentle genesis.
Findings suggest that our moon is the result of an extremely violent encounter of some Mars like object with earth. Everything that has been thrown into the outer space must have gently led to our peaceful earth-moon carousel. If in space nothing can be fatigued, the couple still has to do what they did from the beginning: the globe is hit, the dirt is spouting beyond the gravitational limit into the vacuum where it continues travelling for all eternity. Its direction is a straight line radially away from earth. Since the lumps are now outside the sphere where earth could still bring them back, their movement is relative to the neighboring lump. What has movement and direction in the universe has it relative to something else. What we then see - after millions of years, perhaps - is that the uprooted dirt has settled as a disk in rings around the injured planet, it does not show an explosion form any more, but a thin ring and a nearly spherical moon. Can I explain this clearly without contradiction, gently, by expected processes, how from a disaster shape, the perfect balance of our days could be achieved? No fatigue nor violence, nor forces are to be introduced, assuming only the circumstances after the collision. Each lump moves relative to its neighbor. But since they all radiate apart, they would not be assembled in the moon eternally. We have a moon though. Only expansion theory can explain that. (Written in May 19)
(Sept.19) Expansion Theory has now found a simulation, an animation of a pool of growing balls, where you can switch the perception. There is a so-called vision of God, who can see the expansion, and the view of the corrected movements, where the balls maintain their size. From different perspectives the experience changes dramatically. If many growing balls are in play, they often grow towards each other at the beginning and collide. Some miss out all the time, which then leads to orbits. Even with the simple features of the simulation, an initial bombardment sets in as in the history of our solar system. Could it be that the clean ring of a planet is formed in such a way that all unequal cross-neighborhoods swallow each other quickly, until only the ones left on one level are left? All large parts expand so fast, relatively, that only the tiny things remain whose size increase has not yet led to collisions. If there were water vapor or dust in space, faster than the expansion of the globe, then they could expand forever, without touching. Over time, moons would also clean up with this fine remnant. Moons sometimes have idiosyncratic trajectories because they reflect the direction of the chunks they caught in the average.
(May 2019) Expansion theory states that each part is steadily growing at the same percentage to the neighbor. Suppose we have a swarm of matter, very small diameters like dust grains and kilometer-sized chunks. If the small doubles in size, it has two dust grains in diameter the big one has 2 km. If the little one was close to the big one, then the big one has grown up on top of it. If the parts are not quite as different, they begin to spiral towards each other. This is an effect that can only be explained by expansion. While each piece circles around its adjacent part for an eternity, a common layer emerges over time that creates rings. Moons grow as large diameters catch more and more of the small whirlpools growing on them. The mass accumulates in spherical form. If expansion applies to all atoms, then this gentle genesis is possible. All parts integrate in a sphere. In it, the direction away from earth is unrestrained, as after the collision and nothing rotates. Earth will never catch up with the moon, even if it expands six times as fast. The moon represents the escaping matter after the impact. He does not rotate.
According to Mark McCutcheon all matter is twice as big every ten days as before. In space this means that the moon must have slid away from us every ten days by an earth diameter, if it does not want to be swallowed. It easily manages to do that, including what its own doubling needs, and it is enough for it to drive elliptically away from Earth and come back. It actually drives away from us in the average speed of those droplets that once could liberate themselves.
P.S: As an animal species, we have increased our observer capabilities explosively. We have data far beyond our appropriate capacities. There is a risk that we arrange everything in shelves from archaic primeval times. But in the process we do not notice how we label the facts and thereby let the old demons in, named as powers, energies and charges, thus mystifying simple statistical processes. The idea of an attraction force driving the above processes is glorifying violence, because the little ones are sucked in by demonic forces to be consumed.
Demons in Scientific Thinking.
May to August 2019
Gravitation, understood as a force that attracts masses through space, is not a force of nature but a misunderstanding, a remnant of malicious magical thinking. But there are no demonic powers that fumble imperceptibly like pickpockets on me and pull me down. Newton, the old magician, created a demon for us. What he can do is truly astounding: he pulls every weight, the apple, the spring, the concrete block, the moon, the tides and distant galaxies. He pulls without delay without inertia to overcome, no matter what mass he has to move. He pulls without leaving any traces or starting points on the apple, concrete or moon. He also pulls without fatigue, eternally, consumes no energy, no source taps. The miraculous powers do not stop there. Gravity, which clicks on the concrete block to move, acts in simultaneity through space and time, at every distance, i.e. faster than the light. For example the sun, it attracts the earth in simultaneity, but its light travels 8 minutes to be seen from us. Newton's gravity cannot be shielded and it cannot be measured directly. Not even in the famous slingshot operations you measure attraction! There is truly magical thinking behind it. Such forces cannot reasonably exist, only demons are "somehow" inexplicable, so the concept of masses that pull is misleading and contrary to nature.
I once thought we had overcome this miraculous age. Sure, here's a relic from the Middle Ages. For three hundred years, the magic trick works, but no one wants to know how it goes. Quite simply: you twist the understanding of an everyday fact. When my vehicle accelerates, it pushes me into the chair. I feel that pressure on my back and find nothing surprising. If I talk people into the story that they feel there a pulling force that somehow pulls on every atom of their body, then I have them under control. Now they have to understand themselves as fundamentally unfree. Suddenly there are incomprehensible invisible, unknowable threads between things. Instead of the normal inertia there is now a magic power. As the worst consequence, such a world is suddenly absurd, not the perfidious theory.
Save the matter!
Matter, Mater, Mother denotes what is, what we are made of, and it is a beautiful word with that deep meaning.
For a hundred years, however, modern physics has shaped our idea of the inner nature of the world, down to all branches of knowledge and popular cosmologies. The spirit (male, with countless synonyms) is the real jack-of-all-trades. What works as matter, is actually empty, hollow, delusion, nothing but a form of misunderstood energy. In the atom it is almost empty and if you push fast enough, all matter is transformed into disembodied energy. In Europe, Arabia, Africa and India, even to China and Japan, one has this disgusting contempt for women and therefore for matter in the reigning program. The woman is hollow and vain until she is not inseminated as a vessel. As these societies cannot find peace because of this heaven-shouting injustice, so the associated world view is pathological phallocratic, asocial, masochistic in the end. That is not acceptable. The feminine and therefore a world theory with appropriate respect for matter, must urgently be upgraded. The divine feminine must come out culturally. Matter, mother, woman is everything we have. Matter is the only thing that exists in the universe. To believe, matter must be impinged by forces, mind and energies, is abuse of power and serious injustice.
This misguided worldview misleads the powers, they believe that what is not, can be decomposed and destroyed. Luckily we have a movement here in the West that wants to see the coming of divine femininity. However, this meets with resistance, because it somehow does not fit that something as secondary as the mother, matter, acquires equality, even alone causing the world. I can imagine a more equitable world and mean, you women should first attack the harmful causation teachings. Let us know: The days of separation of matter and energy are numbered. Everything is matter, albeit expanding matter.
A Simple Description of Light.
What would I tell an open minded person on light and color? I would have to pick him up where he is and make a conclusion that tells him something. We humans, by our sense organs and our thinking, look from the outside on those spherical, tiny atoms, which were always there before us, atoms. Yes, these atoms made our universe. We are creatures, created somehow, but the creator for us seekers-of-truth is not generously divine, but tiny incomprehensibly tiny, incomprehensibly numerous and in itself atomic-bomb-like mighty, incomprehensibly vast and powerful.
It is frightening how many mistakes are made in the cognitive process. Both, Hubble and Einstein were only seemingly clear thinkers. Hubble, vain, managed to call a "natural law", "Hubble's Law", which claims that redshift equals speeding away from us. "Away from us" should be a forbidden concept in relativistic theory in the first place. Then, if light is on its way for billions of years in a cosmos of gasses and dust, there may be other reasons than acceleration for light turning red. It is a pleasure to get this field so clearly thought out by The Final Theory. The wave stretching image has no place in describing the phenomenon of light. If a medium such as air or ether were to transport light, it would have to get tired, it could not last for billions of years. But light changes color when filtered, not when it hisses away from us! White light gets red by passing through a red plastic sheet. So what is light? As I understand from Mark McCutcheon's discussion, light consists of bundled electrons that propagate at the speed of light; thanks to their property that they always and forever expand. Successive electron clusters push each other through space, all of which arise when shaken off by too fast vibrating atoms. The term frequency of light does not describe something wavelike, but denotes the number of electron clusters released into space per second. Red light consists of fewer and larger clusters than violet at the other end of the visible area. So what is light? The true physical nature of light can be described by expansion theory. Poetic: Light is a swarm of electrons longing for its subatomic home. It is certainly not an immaterial wave carried by an immaterial medium that can vanish when it collides with other immaterial waves out of sync.
2017. 12. 13
In Portugal alone in a hotel at the beach. For the first time the famous morning fog, I cannot see the other end of the beach. Nevertheless, the surfers are already in the water, all in costume. AFFILIATION. That's the cue, people are looking for affiliation when they swim, not just while they read or listen, it is always about affiliation. They scan others' thoughts for sentences for signals of their affiliations. If I talk to you and no words, which could fit your sphere, are dropped, I fall immediately through the net. From there on what I say is uninteresting, at most subject to hostility, but even for this certain keywords must first be in the air. It is part of communicating that one must reduce the surplus of the incoming, and the most common method is to focus on what comes from one's own corner. Belonging decides on understanding. The signs are wetsuits, hairstyle, tattoos, flags and keywords, everything the ancestral primate already used.
The world-formula has no lobby. In order to feel affiliation with the final questions of humanity, you have to be on a long path of questioning, on which the main questions appear only after years. Then you should not have been hijacked on the way by the system. Few have the courage and the financial resources to make it through. Only at the end of the tunnel comes understanding of the weight of the search for a theory of everything.
Then, finally, to recognize that and how someone has solved the problem, is again a hurdle. Because inevitably there fall words that the affiliation scanner wants to sort out. Nevertheless one should think, there would be a few thousand reader/thinkers world-wide, which would understand the new theory. Among those, there would be a few who practice the new understanding fully aware that they participate in something, which can happen only once in human history. That would be the membership group with which we could be among our peers. There are innumerable Scientists who profess the search for the world formula to be close to their hearts, but their built-in affiliation scanner prevents them from getting convinced when the time has come.
At the turn of the millennium one of us has scrutinized our entire scientific heritage and discovered that you only have to go one step behind the usual approach to realize what drives everything. Mark McCutcheon, a Canadian living in Australia, has managed "The Final Theory", his book is a millennium event. He has done what we have been striving for generations: It is riddled, the world puzzle! What is behind everything that has been caused so obviously? Anyone who thinks rationally and can follow clear sentences must understand, it is done, once and for all, the theory of everything is found. For me, a source of joy, but I wonder in what time we live finding an alternative world view so hopelessly underestimated. The fact is, I do not know of a single comrade willing to follow correct theorizing.
I also wonder what would happen if everything would be different, if the world understood what a great instrument a valid, self-consistent theory of everything is. Are we missing the Golden Age?
The vision of a future that will never take place: a world of reason.
"The world formula finally found!" Cheers in all universities. "Spread the word, the world has been explained! How could we even live without the knowledge of causation on all levels small and large scale? How was it possible to handle electricity and still have ideas of charge in mind? These are shamanic Stone Age notions of a burden that have done their duty for some discoveries, but have stood in the way of understanding what electricity, light, and gravity are really. Let us go the new way and rearrange all scientific disciplines according to the criteria of a unifying basic theory! The reward will be terrific, a new truth has arisen, the longed-for age of reason has begun! " That is how the bells should sound everywhere.
Here are a few of the key insights of the new worldview:
Atoms are not like solar systems, which could not defend their globular shape, planetoide electrons would easily be thrown off track. Atoms have parabolic bouncing electrons. Gravitation is not a mysterious force that defies measurement, not traction, but a domino effect of expanding atoms that push each other. Gravitational waves are just a misunderstanding. Waves need a medium to carry them. What kind of medium should be the carrier medium in the vacuum of space? Also, light has never been wavy, light consists of clocked electron beams and has mass and inertia. Electrons are the building blocks of the universe, they expand like light. There is no dark matter. That was just a miscalculation. The moon does not circle us like we don’t circle the sun, which we see rising and setting. Now I imagine these insights would reach the critical mass socially, everywhere where education is an issue, the data available would be re-understood from this new perspective. Suddenly there would be affiliation, exchange of ideas, we-feeling all over the world. While I cannot believe that this has not happened long ago, I have my doubts whether it would open the longed-for Golden Age. Expansionist theory would be preached at every training college. Newton and Einstein would only be a topic for historians, for psychopathy researchers. The system would have the power to enforce World theory. Everywhere, power centers would hold huge celebrations in honor of Mark McCutcheons world theory. Policemen sat on the school bench and revised their atomic model. In the social sciences, medical results would come to light. Every child would know why the magnet button sticks to the fridge door and does not fall to the floor. All sorts of religion would seem to fear the new knowledge, or they would have to find ways to overcome their body-mind model. The last time the church felt similarly under fire, when better telescopes shot the Earth out of the center of the universe, she invented the Inquisition to fight the new insights.
The new truth would certainly bring a new intolerance against those who remained behind. Both sides would vigorously defend themselves, social unrest, inquisition would be the result. Above all, it is to be expected that only the corporate powers would benefit from the new insights. The untrained would be hung once more. Everything put on balance, this new enlightenment as a new creed does not seem so desirable to me. This important human right to experience the truth has a bitter aftertaste in the current still largely totalitarian religious environment. Perhaps it is good fate that the tunnel that leads to the understanding of the world theory is so tedious and long that only a few enjoy the achievements. I'll probably have to put up with the fact that I'll never belong to a club that has the theory of everything on its flag. I can live with that, lucky that I understand what I think. Maybe it's just a matter of keeping the secret for descendants who also want to mature. I feel being in good company with the enlighteners of all times, all of whom wrote their messages in a gruesome, narrow-minded environment. Ecce homo.
Appendix: Expansion for everyday life - an attempt in simple pictures.
Before breakfast, the moon is pale and glassy, the day begins. I think how the geometry of growing, moving bodies explains what I see. Expansion theory describes the causation of what we perceive and also scientifically capture in a completely unfamiliar way. It builds on the idea that in the background of all things there is a kind of increase in size that can be unveiled by geometry. So when I look at the moon as a supporter of expansion theory, I'm not attracted to Newton's appeal, but to a whole new set of thoughts. So: the moon is racing past the earth, in the rushing noise he would have to be smaller and smaller, which he compensates for by his "growth in size", the expansion. He goes down for me because earth is expanding wildly and pushing me so high that the moon gets under the horizon, while the earth is still spinning, which adds to the first effect. When he reappears, the moon has hurried so far that he would be small like a star. But he still appears the same size, because on both sides we have to calculate expansion and relative speed. (The Earth expands six times faster than the Moon, depending on the radius.) That's how I imagine expansion and transfer the idea to all orbiting and parabolic phenomena. Always two bodies grow towards each other, each one has its own speed and direction relative to the other. To do this, the two speeds and the respective growth must fit together so that they can no longer get away from each other. Body A is moving steadily in the direction, it has been hit into (not in a circle), according to its radius it would lock onto the other body B, if it did not have its direction and pace. Body B as well, does not really fly in a circle, but in the direction given to it, as a geometrical system, as a result of the geometric consequence-effects, appears a spin around each other. This explains whirlpools and orbits.
For the time being incomprehensible to my friends, the imperceptible growth in size, which creates all the orbital effects, but runs counter to their everyday persistence beliefs and needs. For us, who are made of this ever-growing stuff, the realization that everything is expanding is an intellectual achievement that one has to be prepared to, and that requires the geometry of growing, relatively moving bodies. I admit that the expansionist description of the Earth-Moon relationship is a bit cumbersome compared to the simple ball-swing concept, which unfortunately is untenable.
The idea of expansion transferred into my everyday life could be: My pen, the pen is hard, because it grows against me, not because it is made of hard plastic. That would be a pleonasm. Overnight, the pen did not wait idly on the bed for me, who grew a millionth every second, it would then be small and away from my senses. It expanded with me instead and the space between us equally expanded so the pen turns up where I put it in the evening. No wonder our senses filter out this way of thinking and suggest the simple consistency. But we are here on the way to the Theory of Everything and cannot afford the hallucinations and the intellectual patchwork with forces and energies. We must take the trouble to consider this inconceivable background, to calculate, from which then all effects and the assumed energies of real life itself turn out to be simple geometry. No wonder that this effort does not make a big splash among my contemporaries, they would rather translate the expansion idea back into their familiar worldviews. But if I had to answer the question, whether the new worldview is suitable for everyday use, whether we could live without the numerous flops in our basic assumptions: Obviously, this is not to be expected and not necessarily to be desired.
Electrons Are Matter-Making Matter.
I have not answered your letter, because I did not want to bother you with our attempts to sort out our positions, Roland Tremblay and me. We exchanged many arguments along Expansion Theory.
One point, which I wanted you to read is about electrons being one step further from our atomic realm than atoms, which in their turn are creations of a realm behind them. So the description of electrons is even to a higher degree strange to our physics.
Atoms in their turn depend on the préexisting electrons like we do on atoms. No wonder they have properties which seem uncomprehensible in our observable universe, properties that excede our range of perception and logic. Could it be, that size, distance and before-after-relationships of whatsoever do not mean anything in a true understanding of electrons? In our perspective, electrons are speeding through undescribable vast spaces, forming an ocean of electromagnetic phenomena like crisscrossing ripples on a pond, forming atoms and parts of them as well as galaxies and clusters of them. They expand through space and time untouchable, unaltered, undestroyable, uncompressible, for uncountable "lightyears", truely unimaginable. They spread from a lightsource endlessly through space, forming an ever growing bubble. Such properties, which we can barely understand, are not sufficient to describe the essence of electrons. They are in such an awsome way préexisting even to atoms, that any kind of model becomes inapropriate by force. I dare an assumption: for an electron the whole universe is at plain view, it is its body. Time and space are a kind of crossover-side effect, not part of an electrons definition. Atoms from the electrons perspective are just statistics like fractals on the output sheet of a calcularor.
All I know about electrons, I know thanks to you, Mark. They make partial orbits around big expanding bodies. We understand, that half of an electron's diameter is one millionth every first second, when bouncing within an atom. As the only constituent of the atom and because it shows lensing, momentum etc, you call the electron matter. But it is not quite matter, it is matter-making matter. Am I touching a theoretical detail: the two step strangeness of electrons gives space for imagination. The art of forming clusters is something very essential in the electron's world. Such clusters must be beautiful rounded ornaments like those structures people can build with magnetized metal balls. Endlessly many such regular figures are possible with only one kind of ball. Such ornamental clusters might show the possibilities electrons have when forming regular clusters as in light or when forming subatomic particles. Would such a property of the matter-making matter explain anything new? I understand with great satisfaction, how the space within the atom is strange to us creatures formed by those ball shaped preexisting forms, but in what manner are the prerequisites of atoms strange and undeductale to the atom itself? I am sorry for the introspective language here, it serves to sort out the two step objecive. Are electrons matter, very speedy matter? It is may be nothing but an immature question in my head: matter is what appears when the slowly expanding atomic surfaces become statistics and thus create the atomic realm. Could it be that people reject emotionally that you include those untouchable things like light into the definition of matter? Even Roland Tremblay who has followed you all the way, deviates in his view on electrons. He ends up in struggling with strangely vibrating undetectable New Age electrons.
As you say, it is the birthright of mankind to have access to the true understanding of the world we live in. This aspect of your theory has revitalized my sense of justice. Since the Declaration of Human Rights in 1789 the struggle goes on, that we live in an understandable world and thus have potentially access to the truth. Human right fighters are trying to install a supplement to the human rights declaration. They are more on a political crusade, they fight for truth in case of totalitarian injustice. They shoud fight for the more general birthright, but maybe their more pressing topic can help the general case.
In my case, dear Mark, you have reached the goal, the legacy of enligtenment has reached a new starting point. If I have to die, it will not be so hard, I'll be glad to have encountered the solution, the Final Theory, in German "Welttheorie", before it was too late. I'll be 80 in January, which gives a certain perspective on the theme. It is not too late to say thank you to you, your book has given my life a twist, that lets me enjoy the physical world in a much deeper sense than I could have expected before. Thank you Mark.
yours sincerely Fred
Addendum to Matter Making Matter.
People do not like that, in their fundamental belief, even light should no longer be purely spiritual, but matter with inertia. However, light is not really material in the understanding of people today. This does not change the ingenious approach of MM, who in his expansion theory very succinctly sets light equal to matter. In search of the reasons why his theory disapproves, I would like to pacify this didactic point. Light is one of the precursor forms possible in subatomic space. Perhaps the minds would rather open, if the term matter in the strict sense were limited only to atomic matter. Light moves forward at the speed of light; Matter less fast. You do not experience the inertia of light like stone. That arouses rejection, perhaps rightly so? Light symbolism, especially among Catholics, where the popes have appropriated the sun gods insignia, is the essence of light near the Holy Spirit. There is the idea that light is just a bunch of self-propelled lumps of matter, not suitable at all, a real nuisance.
Expanding Matter as Popular Belief
By Fred Weidmann
The “Theory of Expanding Matter” must become public thought. In the long run this is unavoidable, because expanding matter is what this universe is made of. Once this discovery has been made, there is no way back, it will make its way into our everyday thinking, or else we exclude ourselves of the one and only chance to demystify the wonders of this world.
Anyway, it does not hurt to rethink a few things: How did I feel, wandering among magnets, light bulbs, bouncing balls and solid objects, not understanding what so ever? Since I have adopted the idea of expanding matter, I started healing in the field of intellectual self-esteem. I was trapped in a surrealist play where the actors were not physical characters, but strange subjects from some meta-language. Invented “energies” acted upon invented theoretical entities, leading to weird observations, held possible by circular argument and various other argumentative tricks. Now after meeting Mark McCutcheon’s theory of expanding matter, I can finally hop off the rat wheel. I imagine matter not sitting there passively being tossed around by some immaterial energies, but expanding in order to exist. I try to see things with eyes expanding in synchronicity with everything else in my universe.
In this thought experiment you my reader are expanding too. In order not to experience active matter mushrooming over you, you have to be made of the same expanding matter as mother earth herself. You will feel her pressure from underneath, not a pull, as you had thought before, your weight. She is your space elevator taking up speed. She is catching up with your landing gear after you have jumped. You are not falling, you just experience weightless floating in space until the solid surface of our planet has caught up with you. And that is not all, as you expand and push in all directions too. If you want to understand this interaction physically, you will have no choice, there is only McCutcheon’s beautiful Expansion Theory that can give you the comprehensive answer.
Our brain squeezes - it seems - our perceptions to fit our beliefs. Many of our so called facts originate in a misinterpretation of what we observe. This is surprising, because our senses and organs must make no mistakes in dealing with the physical reality, or else we would not survive. Why there is no culture that has made this discovery? Why has there never been a shaman who checked how “falling” things were floating stressless? The misunderstanding is fundamental, of the kind that we see the sun moving across the sky, when in fact it is we turning around the sun. Like this relativistic twist has become a symbol of enlightened thinking in the past, I hope, the inevitable basic fact of expanding electrons and matter makes its way into the hearts and thinking of the scientific community and of every reasonable human. The benefits are surprising. I am proud to live in the time when Mark McCutcheon with his “The Final Theory” overthrew the many flawed inherited attempts to explain our world.
Munich, Germany, August 3, 2016
Dear Mr. McCutcheon,
I am with your Final Theory since 2011. Lately, I looked up your name at your publisher's site and found your work overgrown with standard theoretical books. I wonder what happened to your thought line. Instead of a world that feels ashamed for not having discovered the nature of their improper thinking, I find people who have inherited their ideas defending them. I am a social scientist (Dr. rer.pol.), who turned into an artist after years of research on human misunderstanding. As a painter one gets used to being misunderstood, I think. But since I try to convince people that there is an alternative to the standard view of physics, which comes without mistakes nor lies, there is no one left, who tries to understand. Artists are weird people with freaky ideas.
Before I present my question, I have to tell you, that I feel very privileged to live in the times when The Final Theory was discovered. I am amazed where it was hiding, the new Paradigma. And I am enthousiastic about your theory and its implications. Not to forget to tell you how I enjoy your writing.
My first question is of course general, where do I find what has happened within your theory since 2010, there must be people flying high on your wings. Secondly, my concern in human understanding is linked to your theory of light and color, offering premisses to an implicite theory of perception and communication. If our senses are devices for catching material light-clusters instead of wave recognition, then we are connected to the physical reality more directly than anybody assumes in social sciences. Misunderstanding and lies would appear as superfluous games on top of a very reliable physical truth on which we survive. Is there anybody working along this line?
Thank you in advance, I hope this letter finds you in good health and circumstances.
I am so glad, to read that I don't have to worry about your reception of opposing thoughts.
Because of the extended break in our correspondence I reread thoroughly your "New Age Physics" and I feel, I should be less discouraging in my attitude. Looks like I am extremely materialistic compared to your tolerance towards esoteric topics. I am reluctant to follow you there, as there is enough mind-matter to consider by simply trying to come up to Mark McCutcheon's -MM's- physics.
Our basic difference is that I am totally satisfied with MM's theory and that I am convinced that where he ends his argument the object of any inquiry ends there too. In other words, if the argument ends at the level of all equally expanding electrons, it means, the de facto physical world ends there too. There is simply nothing left to excavate beyound that point. I found my peace with this ending and I adore the simplicity and elegance of MM's conclusions.
This leaves a vast field of topics unrelated and even useless in our quest for the final truth. But how could I mind if somebody has questions there. Why is that so, since when is it so, who gave the rules, is there a universal metronome, are we living in a world where only electrons are left like in a pool where only sharks are left, because they ate all the fish? May be we can apply a kind of Darwinistic evolution model to physics where the most aggressive type of electron is the winner in a cruel process that eliminates everything slower or smaller than them until this final state is reached, where nothing can exist but this expanding electron. Nothing parallel nothing inferior left, just one explainable universe!
There is also a premis that I share with MM, I guess: It makes no sense to give rules to the world that gives us the rules. This puts the lid on the pot of my thinking. MM took so much pain to explain how the inner space of atoms is different from ours and he makes shure we understand that we depend on deductive guesswork when we talk about the realm that creates ours. The rules are strict, no measurement possible by our logic, not by lack of tools. Speculating about the essence of electrons is even more daring, after all we dare to apply our logic to the constituents of what constitutes our atoms. We go one step further back from the measurable into the makers of the kitchen that cooks us.
If Expansion Theory is the proper description of all physical reality, then I can imagine something unspoken so far within the atom. If there is a nucleus in the atom, we have a few thousand electrons pushing against each other with the explosive power of their expansion creating a nuclear cluster of thousands of growing electron diameters in its radius. Whatever clusters there are within an atom, they must add up to thousands of light speeds at their outer edge. Imagine a lonely electron flying by at its relatively slow speed of light, it can only bounce off, being kicked off by the much faster clusters endlessly. By our logic it can never go on a complete orbit because the difference of expansion speeds is in the thousands. Does this describe what MM means? If so, and if you can agree, how can you imagine spaces like a solar system within an atom? I am aware of my reasoning with features common to our atomic realm, which might not apply to the electrons' realm, being too crude a model, but it makes a decent ending in harmony with MM's theory. Does it? And would this mean, the universe is not shy to produce speeds that are many thousand times light speed if it is confined within the atom? And as electrons do not know where they are, within or outside of atoms, they do behave always the same: they expand and they cluster if conditions force them. This leads me to believe that we observe and measure the speed of light and other electromagnetic phenomena yet another crossover effect, not of atoms but of their constituents. A twostep crossover event that looks like ripples on a pond!
As I am on a quest for explaining the ways of perception and image making of the living, I have written more about the illusions that appear when dealing with the physical world. Too much text here. After all I want to answer your letter and what you call New Age facts. Congratulations to you and your friend Mark for making the step into hypnotherapy out of office work. I imagine that by the time you have treated 50 people you have a solid clientele to start your own business. I have never experienced being hypnotized, I mind giving my life and my senses into the hands of anybody - my post war hang up. But I have read and experienced a lot which goes that way mainly through psychedelic adventures. I was 30 in 1968 with tight connections to Harvard University when the LSD hype was at its highest. No doubt, it is absolutely rewarding to have access to the possibilities of the mind, especially if you want to make your own competent contributions in that scene. And I enjoy your effort of giving New Age a new expansionist language. The problem with that scene is, that you can not argue with people who believe in things they have seen or preconceived so strongly, but which are clealy untenable full of multiple biasses. They will continue with their astrological blabla and their magic energies even after having understood that their beliefs are untenable. The same shock that we experience with the reception of Expansion Theory I get when I come on New Age territory.
An episode from Switzerland: It is relatively easy to convince somebody that we are not attracted by gravity, but pushed from underneath when we feel our weight. This is a partial success of reasonable thinking. But if the same person gets a sneeze, he does not cure it with what you expect of such a thinker, he takes a mirror and a sacred candle and fights the maledictions that must have caused his sneeze. And in his eyes it works, the proove is, the sneeze is gone after having deflected ten evel neighbors who bewitched him by jalousy. On the surface these Swiss aborigines are modern organic food eaters, but in their heart they are closer to stone age than we think and it harms society. The same I can say about the Balinese demons, they harm the people absolutely unnecessarily.
I am still under shock of what you write about the fate of MM's book and theory, it's a tragedy and a chance for us. I am preparing a new homepage with many texts in our field of interest, hoping to have some impact that way.
Best regards Fred
Dear Roland, I wrote this discussion a week ago, but because of problems on the income-side, I have not sent you so far. It emphasizes a point which MM does not stress much in his book. But for me, thinking of a way to describe the ways of human communication and understanding, it means a lot. Also I try to convince you that it is risky to attach anything to the Final Theory and its assumptions. After all you try to argue that it misses essential points connected to non-material realities similar to “energies”. You believe in God, that makes all the difference. I have met thinkers who tried to harmonize that legacy with science, but I always felt, it was their weakest point. Could you argue me into that belief? It would make me(us) much less marginal in a world that moves towards the evangelicals.
Best wishes Fred
2017-06-17 Letter to Roland Tremblay
When I tried to fall asleep last night, I thought about electrons being even much stranger than the inner characteristics of the atoms, which in their turn depend on the préexisting electrons like we do on atoms. No wonder they might have properties which don't make sense in our observable universe, properties that can easily look paradoxical from our range of perception and logic. I propose the thought, that space, distance and before-after-relationships of whatsoever do not mean anything for electrons. In our perspective, electrons are speeding through undescribable vast spaces, forming an ocean of electromagnetic phenomena, forming atoms and parts of them as well as galaxies and clusters of them. They pace through space untouchable, unaltered, undestroyable, intact for uncountable lightyears. They spread from a light source endlessly through time being an ever growing bubble. Such strange properties, which we can hardly understand, are by far not sufficient to describe the essence of electrons. They are in such an awesome way préexisting that any kind of model becomes inapropriate by force. I dare an animistic deduction: for an electron the whole universe is at plain view, it is its body. Time and space are a kind of crossover-side effect, not part of an electrons world.
All that can be, it is in the properties of the electron. Why invent neutrinos, if the definition of the electron can carry everything even spiritual aspects of us humans. To be closer to the Final Theory, couldn't you pack the Final element, the definition of the electron, with all your New Age-spiritual needs? Can electrons really vibrate, if vibration is the side effect of machinegun-like surface contact of freely expanding electrons? Vibration is wavelike and needs a carrying medium, electrons don't know any medium.
We know more about electrons, we know that they make partial orbits around big expanding bodies, so MM calls them matter. We know - thanks to MM - that for any atom half of an electron's diameter is one millionth a second. Again as the only constituent of the atom, MM calls the electron matter. It is not matter, it is making matter. I dare say. There could hide an interesting finesse, which would allow us to talk about non-material properties of electrons. The art of forming clusters is something very essential in the electrons. Such clusters must be beautiful rounded ornaments like those structures people can build with magnetized metal balls. Endlessly many such regular figures are possible with only one kind of ball, showing the possibilities of clusters for electrons.
2022.3.5. T P: Illus.
time also live. The , in end form a . People like in , . , in . and a ball, flies in a , falls . in , ball not a . The ball, in was . . In , not , ball so .
, and ball not ? all in same . , but , deal it. off .
By , he , .