## Thursday, 9 December 2010

### The 'Charge Balance' of grouped particles; the Speed of Light

Two questions remain in my mind: how can we explain the charge level, polarity and spin of already-grouped and/or stable fundamental particles (Hadrons and Leptons)? I'd also like to reconsider the 'speed of light'.

For the first question, there seems to be a constant between the spin of Quarks and Leptons - all forms of both have a 1/2 (positive?) spin. Quarks group in threes, and all forms ('volumes') of quark have either a -1/3 or +2/3 charge. Charged Leptons (namely electrons) have a -1 charge. Why this constant? I wouldn't be surprised if, in the beginnings of the universe, there was a large disparity in the charge level of each particle, and that this constant occurred only after quarks grouped into Hadrons; if Hydrogen was indeed the first atom to form in our universe, two positively-charged 'up' quarks bonded with one negatively-charged ('down') quark; once a Hadron was created (if quarks containing opposing but equal charges didn't annihilate each other first), any energy beyond a combined 'level of stability' would be expelled. Consequentially, once the quark bond was complete, the 'binding force' of the stable Hadron would reject a collision with any gamma or beta particles with a charge below a certain energy level. It would be interesting to calculate the total energy contained in all Quarks and Leptons - would they 'balance out' between the negative and positive? In a stable hydrogen atom, containing two +2/3 charged 'up' quarks, one -1/3 charged 'down' quark and one -1 charged electron, the result is zero. In a Helium atom, whose Hadrons (two Protons, two Neutrons) are composed of six 'up' quarks, six 'down' quarks, and two electrons, the result is... zero. Interesting. Or was the math based on the fact?

As a side note, I'm not so sure that this 'charge constant' is so constant: this could explain why atoms towards the bottom of the periodic table are the least stable: a single slight imbalance in a hydrogen atom may not disturb the solidity of its nucleus, but an accumulation of slight imbalances in an atom with a (much) higher atomic number may push its 'energy envelope' (the energy needed for either nuclear fusion or fission) in one direction or another.

My second question concerns the speed of light. This speed has become a constant that is used in many quantum mechanics calculations, but in trying to avoid sounding pompous about it, I'd like to express some doubt about how this number is often used. I know that it is the 'fastest' known speed in the known universe, but what if, instead of treating the travel rate of gamma particles as a 'speed', we treat it as a behaviour: what if the upper extremity of energy known to us was a barrier, an energy level that, if surpassed, would result in a) the absorption of that energy (by some unknown ('perfect state'?) matter) or b) the creation of a new, mass-and-charge-bearing particle? In short, I think that, by using the speed of light to try to discover the 'base states' of quantum physics, we are limiting ourselves - or in other words, hurdling ourselves against a barrier of our own making.

## Tuesday, 7 December 2010

### Positive and Negative charge in Particles

I'm still a bit flummoxed over the concept of positive and negative charges in the elementary particles known to us - they seem to maintain a mass-containing 'state'. It's not the elementary particle's qualities themselves that has me thinking, but rather their reaction to each other.

If one takes one of our most basic elementary particles, the quark, one can see that it never remains in an independent state for any length of time, but rather is absorbed by another element, or combines with other 'free' quarks to create a Hadron (Neutron or Proton).

When one examines the grouping of Hadrons, one can see that they either contain two 'up' quarks (+2/3 charge) and one 'down' quark (-1/3 charge) as a Proton, or the opposite (two 'down' quarks and one 'up' quark) as a Neutron. First off, one notices that the higher the charge, the less the mass - Protons have half the mass of Neutrons. Examined individually, we see that the combined charge of each element 'balances' into two different states (a Proton = (+2/3) + (+2/3) + (-1/3) = or a charge of 1; a Neutron = (+2/3) + (-1/3) + (-1/3) = or a charge of 0). The 'binding force' between oppositely-charged quarks is probably generated by each element's effort to annihilate each other, or 'draw' from its neighbouring quark's opposing charge, but lacking the power to do so (the elements must have the same opposing charge to annihilate each other), they simply bind. If the charges of two elementary particles are not equal, I am persuaded that the 'binding force' is generated by the 'overlap' between the charges - the 'up' quark would 'suck' an excess 1/3 charge beyond the charge of a neighbouring 'down' quark, and the -1/3 'down' quark can only 'suck' 1/3 of the charge of a neighbouring 'up' quark (if the two could annihilate each other, a +1/3 charge quark (inexistent in our universe) and a -1/3 quark ('down' quark) would remain). So two 'similar' quarks are in an eternal inter-annihilation battle, but it takes three to attain the balanced 'states' we know as Neutrons and Protons.

Moving one step further, a positively-charged Proton (+1 charge) attracts a negatively-charged electron (-1 charge), which would result in an atom (hydrogen) that has a 0 charge through the sum of its parts. The most common Helium atom (2 protons, 2 neutrons, 2 electrons) would have a sum charge of 0 also (six 'up' quarks, six 'down' quarks, two electrons). The most stable form of Lithium atom (7L) has 3 protons, 4 neutrons, and 3 electrons resulting in an overall charge of 0... but it is in itself an unstable element (because of the ten 'up' quarks (+6 2/3 charge) fighting 11 'down' quarks (-3 2/3 charge))? It would be interesting to follow this up the periodic table.

Questions remaining: above I have reflected upon the behaviour of the most common quark 'flavours', but there exist quarks with higher mass than 'up' and 'down' quarks: 'charm' and 'top' quarks are identical to 'up' quarks in their charge and spin, but they have much greater mass - could this be a difference in the volume of 'neutral state matter' affected by a charge? Also, what of the 'spin' of elementary particles? All save Bosons (energies - eg. Photons) have spin. Could it be possible that a spin put on 'neutral state matter' is enough to transform it into a different (but 'neutral charge') discernible element (a neutrino) having some mass?

The constant I see through all the above is a 'state of balance' - elementary particles of all sorts seem be trying to attain a 'level of zero' state (with or without charge). Only elements with opposing factors can annihilate each other (the opposing 'spins' of neutrinos/antineutrinos cancel each other, the opposing charge of hydrogen and anti-hydrogen atoms cancel each other (leaving neutrinos, if their spin is in the same direction?)).

## Friday, 3 December 2010

### Nothing is Something.

Further study into atomic behaviour motivates me to add to my earlier mullings a bit. Yet I am still persuaded that our universe is based on some sort of 'neutral state' material that, thus far, is invisible to us, a matter that may be in itself define 'invisibility'.

What got me thinking the most was my reading on 'antiparticles' - 'stable' particles (any particle in the atomic scale) that operate on a negative charge. In a 'normal' (positively-charged) atom, the positively-charged nucleus (consisting of neutrally-charged neutrons and positively-charged protons) attracts the negatively-charged electron, yet the energy of the electron is not enough to overcome the nucleus' 'binding force' and is repelled by it. The same laws hold true if an atom's nucleus and electron(s) are both negatively-charged. Yet when a particle and its polar-twin antiparticle (say, a hydrogen atom and a 'anti-hydrogen' atom) enter into contact, they annihilate each other, and the same would happen if a positron (positively-charged electron) and electron converge; I am persuaded that whatever is 'left over' from these collisions would be 'neutral state' matter.

Whatever this 'neutral state matter' is, it is capable of accepting a charge, but the conditions in which this could happen would have to be extreme. I imagine an effect almost like water skipping off a duck's back; a ducks's feathers have waterproofing enough to resist absorbing the water propelled on them under 'natural' conditions, but were the water propelled with enough energy (and/or volume), the feathers would be obliged to absorb moisture. This action could explain the behaviour of rays (energy) through a seeming void: if the energy is not travelling with a force/speed enough to affect the 'base state' matter, it will simply skip across it. This may even define the speed of light; any energy above this level is absorbed by the 'base matter', thus becoming invisible to us - or would it create a new perfectly-visible particle?

This model still makes sense when applied to particles as small as quarks. Once a 'base matter' particle becomes charged, it gains mass; it is still 'attracted' back to its 'neutral' state, but is impeded from doing so by its charge. How the newly-formed particle behaves with its neighbouring particles depends on how it is charged: according to today's model, an 'up' quark has a 2/3 charge and a 2.4 MeV mass, and a 'down' quark has a -1/3 charge and twice the mass, and these, once created, would 'clump' into 'stable state' Hadrons (Protons and Neutrons).

I wouldn't be at all surprised if quarks and electrons, if they are not one and the same, are at least in the same family: it would make sense if, at the beginning of the universe, the quark-energy soup combined to form all the Hadrons (Protons and Neutrons) it could, and electrons are simply 'free' negatively-charged quarks 'left over' from this grouping/inter-annihilation: these particles would be attracted to the already-formed Protons by their negative charge, but would lack the energy needed to affect the Proton's already-stable state ('binding energy'), thus gravitate around them.

Atomic construction from then on was consequential, through methods already well-known to us.

## Monday, 1 November 2010

### Further thought on atom construction.

In examining a chart of known elementary particles (one is available here), I noticed that the lower the electrical charge of an element, the higher the mass. In referring to my earlier thoughts, could this mean that mass can be synonymous to... gravitational pull, and that electrical charge can cancel that pull? Or does it mean that, in order for a certain particle to remain stable, it must contain a 'balanced' charge/base energy ratio?

It seems to fit. An 'up' quark is half as heavy as a 'down' quark, and there is a 'one part' charge difference between the two (an 'up' quark has a 2/3 charge, a 'down' quark has -1/3 - thoughts on this scale later). There are other 'heavier' types of quarks (following the same 2/3 -1/3 pattern), but we'll stick to the base elementary particles for now for simplicity's sake. Anyhow, in the next stage of atomic construction, that is to say the formation of hadrons, we see that quarks whose masses are similar are more prone to group into a stable hadron (proton or neutron). If we then consider electrons, elementary particles having a -1 charge and having approximately 1/5 the mass of an 'up' quark (thus 1/10 of a 'down' quark)... there's something going on here.

I'm imagining something like this:

Of course, the quarks are not to scale (it is possible that the 'G' base energy is consistent, and only the 'E' (charge) element varies), but you get the picture. If we were to bump the electron's -1 charge indicated in the chart above to '0', and apply the same change throughout, it would fit this schema exactly: electrons would have no charge, 'down' quarks would have some charge, but 'up' quarks would have more. In fact, I would in fact like to do away with the notion of 'negative charge' altogether - either something has charge, or it doesn't. Gravitational energy ('base energy') attracts charge energy (they almost seem to be trying to cancel each other out). If it were really that simple...

If we move up to the next stage of atom formation (the grouping of 'like' quarks into hadrons, or neutrons and protons), it makes even more sense: quarks will group according to their charge (two ups and one down, or vice versa - I suppose any additional quark will cause 'imbalance' and be rejected), then neutrons and protons will group in turn (in a stable atom, at least to the lower end of the periodic table, there is an equal amount of neutrons and protons) - in any atom nucleus, it would seem that the energetic charge of protons cancels out those of neutrons, leaving only the gravitational force to hold sway over neighbouring elements (apart from their own attraction, depending on their charge, to the stabalised core).

But let us not forget that the first atoms of our universe were hydrogen atoms - and these have no neutron - yet we can see why a non-charged element (electron) would be attracted to a charged element (proton) only. Let us also remember that an electron penetrating a proton will transform it into a neutron - or, in another way of looking at it, it will transform one of the proton's 'up' quarks into a 'down' one. Yet both of these tendencies still fit into the model - atoms heavier than hydrogen are created through fusion, thus neutrons as well. I doubt that, in its very very atomic beginning, our universe contained anything but hydrogen atoms, energy, and free electrons.

I'd almost like to imagine that the very beginnings of our universe was lumps of 'G matter' and the pure energy ('E') that resulted in/resulted from its release (from its 'perfect state') - I think that every atom that could ever form (through 'quark binding') in our universe already has, and everything else (photons, free electrons), is the 'leftovers' from this initial mix.

### On Atom Construction

I wouldn't be surprised if quarks and leptons (electrons) contained the same base element. If, at the beginning of our universe, a soup of base elements separated from their stabilising energy charge tried to return to their original 'perfect' state, it would make sense that these elements would 'bind' according to their energy level. Already-charged (positive) elements would bind with lesser-charged (negative) others, creating hadrons, and these in turn would group according to their own respective 'polarisation' (charge). Already stable hadrons would reject any further binding (each contain three quarks, two 'up' and one 'down', or vice versa) - I wouldn't at all be surprised that electrons (leptons) were unbound but charged quarks ('base elements') 'left over' from the initial 'soup construction' stage, once it was completed. Electrons still attempt to bind with an atom's nucleus (and its protons and neutrons), but the 'rejecting force' ('binding energy') of an atom's nucleus (and its individual hadrons) and its opposing charge, prevent them from doing so.

This fits in with the thought that gravity is the 'base element' minus its initial energy, or the effect caused by the 'base element' trying to capture energy enough to return to its initial 'perfect' state. A base element trying to recuperate its initial energy either succeeds or fails depending on its energy level in relation with its neighbours - once no further hadron binding was possible, everything else that followed (atom construction) was but consequential.

Addendum: I can't help but observe that the 'binding force' between stable elements decreases as we advance further along the atomic construction scale. Binding between quarks (creating hadrons) seems to be the strongest, but it is lower between charged hadrons (neutrons and protons).

I also can't help but notice that protons (containing two charged, or 'up' quarks) alone, unbound, are the only element that can retain stability; neutrons are overcome, or are 'evaporated', by their own forces. Does this mean that a stabilised hadron has to 'feed on' (or be 'fed upon') by its neighbour in order to maintain stability? Neutrons contain one 'charged' quark (or 'up' quark) and two 'down' quarks; although a neutron has greater mass (?), the single 'up' quark (that seems to be the instigator of the binding energy) alone doesn't seem to contain energy enough to keep the quark formation together. It would seem logical that a neutron needs to 'feed' on a proton's two 'up' quarks; together, a proton and a neutron together contain three 'up' quarks and three 'down', thus balance each other perfectly. Furthermore, consider that when a 'negatively charged' electron, when introduced into a proton, creates a neutron: it would seem that a 'negative' (no energy?) electron 'saps' a proton's positive energy (transforming one of its quarks into a higher mass 'down' quark. This seems to fit into the theory that even a quark has a 'stable state' of its own: either it is a 'base energy' (gravitational force) containing no 'electrical' charge, or it is an (equal?) balance of base energy and charged energy. 'Base energy' seems to be the most stable of the two, if a hadron's charged energy is released with the introduction of additional uncharged 'base energy'. This is all beginning to make sense.

## Monday, 25 October 2010

### A difference in state: Mass and Dark Matter.

In my earlier posts and illustrations, I tried to portray the interaction of objects with a state of mass against those without: I don't think I was very clear, and I am thinking now that I may have been off the mark. I tried to attribute gravity to the effect between 'perfect state' and 'altered state' matter, but I'm beginning to change my mind and think that, although there may be some inter-reaction between those states, their respective behaviours are not interdependent.

I like more and more the idea that our universe is a soup of a) Perfect energy (dark matter); b) 'altered state' matter, or 'perfect energy' that has somehow been stripped of a stabilising element thus giving it a gravitational quality, and c) energy - or the energy needed for that 'altered state' matter to return to its 'perfect state' form.

Gravity may just be an instability, the result of a 'perfect state' being divorced from the energy it needs to maintain that 'perfect' form. I almost got it right in my earlier illustration showing a 'perfect state' as three (why three, I don't know) objects, one of which is energy; I could in fact simplify it like so:

This would explain many things. I can easily imagine that the beginning of our universe was nothing but a soup of 'base elements' (G) and energy (E) left over from a cataclysmic disturbance great enough to separate them: If our laws of physics remain true (see 'Nuclear Fusion'), the energy needed for that soup to return to its original state would be enormous; it is even possible that our universe does not contain enough energy for that event to ever occur. Thus, in the presence of an enormous amount of energy, but not enough energy to return to their original form, the base elements of our universe recuperated what energy they could, and in regrouping according to their energy content and number of 'base elements', formed what became the hydrogen atoms that were the origin of everything 'solid' in the universe we know today.

I can try to extend this theory to the formation of atoms themselves: it would seem reasonable that 'base energy' elements that have recuperated some of their former energy potential would bond with others that haven't: this would follow the behaviour of quarks that form, always in three, neutrons and protons. Electrons could have formed at the very beginning of the big bang, as 'base energy' elements that had achieved stability through their negative charge (no charge?), but it is also possible that they are the result of a secondary cataclysm caused by the first fusion of (electron-less) hydrogen nuclei. Everything else is a spectrum of 'free energy'.

### Vacuum == 'Dark matter'?

The behaviour/existence of photons is still a mystery to many in the scientific world today. Is a photon a particle, and does it have mass? It is proven that a photon can contribute/subtract mass to/from an atom or atomic structure, but this phenomena is attributed to the photon's energy content; energy added to an existing mass increases that mass without adding any additional material content. The speed of light is calculated on the rate at which a photon travels through a vacuum - or its rate of travel through space containing no discernible obstacle.

This never ceases to puzzle me. Why, when we observe the behaviour of energy in more 'material' objects, should the rules change when the 'energy carrier' decreases in density? Objects made up of 'loosely' tied atoms absorb energy because of the volume of 'free electrons' they contain, and objects of densely packed atoms (namely crystalline structures) let light pass because they have few energy-absorbing free electrons; crystalline structures are in fact photon carriers.

When we observe the behaviour of light through crystalline structures, namely lenses, we can see that they can 'bend' light depending on their form. Light passing through lenses in fact not 'bent', but deflected: light exiting a crystalline structure will do so in a direction away from the thickest part of the lens, or the part of the lens containing the most speed-reducing atoms.

Doesn't the vacuum we call space behave in the same way? It is known that gravity can 'bend' light, a phenomena often attributed to the hypothetical gravitational qualities of photons themselves, but what if it was not the photon itself that was being deviated by gravity, but its carrier?

This makes perfect sense to me. Take, for example, light travelling past a black hole: if the gravitational pull is greater towards the centre of the black hole, so is the mass density; light has more density/gravity to go through on its side towards the black hole, so its path until the point where the gravitational pull is strongest, it will be deflected away; once past the gravitational apogee, if the black hole is perfectly spherical, the light will be deflected back towards its original path.

I wouldn't be surprised if gravity has no effect on light at all. If light depended on a 'carrier' that exists even in an environment we consider to be a 'vacuum', we could do away with the 'electromagnetic quality' theories about photons; photons would become a form of energy whose transmission depends on the quality of its carrier, and would behave just like any other energy known to us.

This leads me to believe that there is no such thing as 'nothing'. If the 'vacuum' of space was in fact a sea of inert 'perfect state' matter, or a material that some scientists are beginning to call 'dark matter', this would simplify the spectral map, and behaviour, of our universe's elements enormously.

## Sunday, 10 October 2010

### The Theory of Everything - In a nutshell.

Okay, a picture is worth a thousand words, so I've created a few diagrams outlining my idea.

Here we have our two states, Base Energy, or the 'foundation' upon all is built, and Reduced Energy, the mass-creating state that is the base of everything we know.

The first diagram seems to indicate direction, but we're talking about states here, so let's simplify things by taking movement out of the equation.

The above diagram describes the present state of my theory - of what is Base Energy composed? I am persuaded that it is at a 'higher' state than the elements visible in our universe. Elements we know closest to the Base Energy state are the 'fastest' (electrons, photons) and have the least gravitational pull - which would move me to think almost of a 'state spectrum' which would look something like this:

I am also persuaded that the 'energy state' difference between quarks and photons is minuscule - but since each state has its own degree of 'glue power', it takes an enormous amount of energy (from our universe) to override the binding force and 'raise' the targeted element's energy level.

It would seem logical that the first element known to our universe was Hydrogen. If the Big Bang was the spewing of an initial 'goo spectrum' of base matter into our universe (dimension), the matter would 'bind' according to its state (energy level) - and the logical result would be our simplest atom, Hydrogen. Everything that happened beyond in our universe is consequential, but these reactions seem to tend towards an 'energy down' direction (elements stripped of all energy save gravity). In order for a base element to 'energy up' to the Base Energy level, something needs to be added to it; without that energy boost, a base element will be prey mainly to the gravitational pull generated by the degree of 'difference of state' between itself and the Base Energy.

## Saturday, 9 October 2010

I'd just like to 'touch up' some thoughts I had about 'mega black holes' - black holes with a mass so great that their cores have (possibly) been reduced to quarks and gluons. If the energy created by the massive compression was so great that quarks (and gluons) would be 'energized' enough to return to their 'perfect state', the black hole would lose mass until it became one with a core of highly compact neutrons. On the other hand, since fusion in elements beyond iron actually needs energy, an energy already consumed by the star during its collapse, I would find it highly plausible that the black hole would stabilize, no matter it's core's consistence.

One conclusion I have been able to confirm through all this is that gravity is the energy pulling an element towards its natural 'perfect' state, and all other forms of quantum-level energy push elements away from that state. In fact, I am even persuaded that there are only two forms of energy working at a quantic level - 'dead' energy (gravity) and 'positive' energy.

## Thursday, 30 September 2010

### For my better understanding (and perhaps yours) - Black Holes, Revisited

I ended my last post with a question - what happens on the 'other end' of a black hole? Well, I don't really know how a black hole is created or how a black hole 'works'. Consider the below a research essay.

Almost every element in our universe above hydrogen was created by nuclear fusion, or the fusion of lighter atoms into a heavier ones.

For nuclear fusion to occur, two (or more) atoms must be compressed together with a force stronger than their respective polarity charges - think trying to force two positively-charged magnets together - so that their nuclei will touch and thus merge. If the binding energy needed for the new heavier atom is less than that needed for the two lighter atoms combined, excess energy, neutrons and electrons are released (explosion), but if the binding energy needed for the resulting larger atom is more, the new atom actually absorbs energy.

Creating nuclear fusion in our environment is extremely difficult: we lack a natural gravitational force strong enough to complete the task, and it takes extreme amounts of energy to force two atoms close enough to fuse (through extreme magnetic forces, particle acceleration, or through heating a plasma enough that its atoms grow agitated enough to collide). On the other hand, stars do all the work themselves.

Stars, the origin of most black holes, produce their energy through fusing hydrogen atoms (our lightest element) into helium. Fusion is attained through both the enormous gravitational compression and heat at the sun's core. Since the binding force and electrons needed for a helium atom (most commonly two neutrons, two protons, two electrons) is less than four hydrogen atoms (one proton, one electron each), energy is released. The helium produced progresses into and becomes the star's core.

Fusion between all atoms in the periodical table lighter than iron create the outward-pushing energy the star needs to counter the enormous inward-pushing core-crushing forces of its own gravity. Fusion between elements heavier than iron needs energy, an energy that can come only from the still-fusable layers above the star's core. So if the star's fusion cycle progresses enough that its core becomes iron, it will collapse.

Here's where the fun begins: since the star's mass, if it is great enough, can only incite a energy-eating fusion at its iron core, here begins a chain-reaction process (that I won't get into here) that will 'compact' the atoms at the star's core into an intensely dense mass of neutrons (that some think resembles the consistence of atom's nucleus - no further compression possible), generating a minor exposion of outward-going nuclear debris that, when mingling with the star's still-fusionable outer layers, will generate a secondary much larger explosion, or supernova (creating an energy that is great enough to generate atoms heavier than iron, in a process called 'r-process'), an explosion that will blow the heavier elements it generates away into the rest of the galaxy. All that remains of the supernova is an immensely compact sphere of unstructured neutron(-proton) core encased by other 'lighter' unstructured atomic elements (progressively: neutrons, electrons, and some ions).

So here we have an object with a huge gravitational pull, no energy and no atomic structure. What this object is called depends on its (former) size: if it was created from an average-sized star, it would be called a neutron star (a non-glowing body that has gravitational pull enough to bend light travelling through its gravitational pull), yet if it had even more mass, it would have a gravitational pull so great that even light could not escape it: this would be a black hole. There is even a hypothesis that, if the star was even larger, it would collapse into a mass so compact that even its core neutrons disintegrate into core of quark-gluon plasma. In any case, the result is a body with gravitational and kinetic constants, a body that can only affect/be affected by the gravity/mass of its neighbours. Black holes do not have a 'sucking power' that stretches to infinite distances; black holes can only affect objects within the limits of their gravitational pull, just like any other celestial body.

If it were up to me, I would tend to group all the above celestial phenomenÃ¦ into the same category.

What did I retain from all this? I find it very interesting that our universe's first atoms were hydrogen atoms - all heavier elements are a result of mass accumulation then nuclear fusion. I did learn that a gravity generated by a mass large enough can overcome even the atomic structures of the mass itself. I also think that a bit much is being made about a black hole's 'event horizon': gravity sucks, even light, alright - who cares what 'we see' as 'observers'?
Concerning my quest for a 'constant theory', I can retain that the universe at its most energetic was hydrogen atoms, and that the universe at its energy-eating deadest is black holes, and that gravity, a constant throughout, exists in/affects every known element in our universe. Yes, gravity can bend, or even trap, light... or does gravity bend/trap the beam along which light is travelling? But I digress into my theorising.

## Sunday, 26 September 2010

### The Theory of Everything - An attempt at summation.

I recently came across a video series made by Nottingham University - 'Sixty Symbols' - that was answers by prominent physicists and astronomers to 'outside-the-box' viewer-submitted questions. One of the most interesting can be found here.

I loved the videos, but one thing that bothered me about the answers, although they were interesting and often quite imaginative, is that they were not quite 'out of the box' in their conception; most scientists seem to be stuck on existing models and our perceptions of those models - I think that, in order to come to a conclusive answer to how our universe functions, we have to do away with how we feel matter and the passage of time. The universe functions quite well on its own without our understanding of it.

These videos cover a wide range of exploration - the big bang, string theory, dark matter, to name a few - but each line of research seems to be stuck in an almost political path defined over sometimes hundreds of years of research and discoveries, and not one defined by the discoveries themselves. There is a connecting something between each line of research, but in order to discover and define it, one must take a step back and rethink all objectively as a whole.

Forgetting the Human 'point of view'
The thing that bothered me the most was their attempt to explain dimensions: it is practical to our perception of matter that it has a measurable breadth, width and depth, but if we re-ask the question from a purely functional point of view, the answer should be much simpler: all matter without exception has 'three dimensions', otherwise it wouldn't exist. So let's reduce our perceivable dimensions to 'is or isn't' - or one. As I mentioned in an earlier post, our sense of time is but our perception of matter's interaction; the scientific measure of time, on the other hand, is a documentation of matter's inter-relational evolution (relative speeds, etc), and of course should be retained.

The 'Joining' theory - a tale of two states
The only energy scientists have difficulty explaining is gravity: all other forms of energy - photons, electricity, magnetism - are but a consequential result of the interaction and behaviour of existing matter/elements. I think that both gravity and the existence of matter can be explained in a unique answer: the interaction/attraction between two energetic states.

I am increasingly persuaded that our universe is 'full' - it is constructed on a base of uniform energy. What we see around us is but a disturbance in that energy, or an energy in conflict with/departed from its initial state; the matter created, from photons to quarks (again, anything above is consequential), is simply a result of the difference in speed between the two energies. One could add direction into the mix (a possible explanation for dimensions), but let's just stay in our dimension for now.

String theory is a kind of nice way of painting this interaction into a form understandable to humans, but I think it kind of misses the point - and I don't see the logic behind the 'nine dimensions' theory (already faultily based on our all-too-human 'three dimensions' point of view). What does make sense in string theory research is that gravity somehow 'bleeds' into other dimensions - but I think 'other dimensions' can be translated to 'one energy's attraction to (or attempt to return to) its initial state' - that would make sense, because in all levels of physics, it is the behaviour of a dominant mass that affects the behaviour of another (anomaly) moving within it. An eddy flowing into the Mississippi, after a few disturbances, will eventually be forced to go with the flow.

I think that our universe's 'base energy' is in a state that is... faster than light (or slower: position is relative, only the difference between the two energetic states matter). In any case, we can consider light to be the highest energetic state existing in our universe - anything charged beyond becomes the base energetic state, and simply 'disappears'.

Dark Matter, Dark Energy
I haven't come up with any concrete idea about Dark Matter or Dark Energy, but it would make sense if they were energies just beyond the speed of light - or perhaps the gravitational attraction of the 'base energy' itself.

Black Holes
When a star's inner core (nuclear fission) is not enough to resist its heavier outer layers, it collapses; if the star is big enough, it implodes into a tiny mass whose gravity is so great not even light can escape its pull. The going theory is that the centre of a black hole attains 'zero (infinate) density'... but what if, at the centre of the black hole, the atomical elements are compacted/energized enough to return to their former 'base energy' state? This would mean that a black hole would eventually dissipate, and they do, but this often (so the theory goes) would take hundreds of billions of years beyond even the life of our galaxy. If an atomical structure would break down into a form matching the 'base energy', wouldn't gravity dissipate as well? How is a black hole's massive gravitational pull maintained for so long? There must be something happening at 'the other side'...

Dimensions, again.
I really don't think dimensions matter in this model. It may be possible that the direction of an 'energy anomaly' through an 'energy base state' may determine a dimension, but if this were the case, an infinite number of dimensions would be possible. Also, in order for matter to pass from one dimension to another, it would first have to attain the 'base energy' state in order to 'change direction'... but let's save dimensions for another day.

## Sunday, 29 August 2010

### The Value of Ignorance

I'm a U.S. politics watcher. I'm not even American, but I find that the political and social climate there to be an often fascinating window into the future of what the rest of the world may one day look like. What is brewing there now is extremely important: the battle for political control is not only over fiscal policies and the usual like; it is a battle over the future of the American psyche.

Class division is a phenomenon that has existed all through human history, and only the methods of enforcing and maintaining that division have changed. Technology has always been a major factor in the marking of class division: those few who invent or use new tools are always enriched by the greater population that depend upon the services they provide. Yet this changed with the technologies of travel: local economies grew and merged with others, some eliminating others outright; as the economical reach of those detaining the 'secrets' and privileges of technology spread, their fiscal power and reach grew as well. The invention of the steam engine and rail, in my mind, was the 'genesis factor' that created the political and social divide we see today.

In older times class division was maintained by brute force. This ended with the rise of Democracy, so the creators and distributors of technologies and riches had to find other means of maintaining their position of dominance. Monopolies were a major tool of dominance in the early years of the mass-production industrial era, but when even these were outlawed, the barons of the time had to find yet other means of creating and maintaining the dependance of the populaces.

It was the post-WWII economic mass-production-and-distribution boom that shaped the economy as we see it today.  That period also marked a change in the management of riches attained through production and distribution: the profits of industry were removed from their production source and put to other uses. From an initial trend of investment in new technologies, those 'uses' since then have become increasingly dispersed, vague and even obfuscated. Corporations best represent best the misuse and stagnation of financial gain: from their origins as accumulations of wealth designated to fixed projects (bridges, urban development) managed by the economic leaders of their times, today they are mindless accumulations of wealth that that have only profit - no matter the means or the manager - as a motive. When the line between production and profit is broken, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain - and justify - financial gains and their use to the economy.

Enter the age of misinformation. The industrial barons could no longer depend on monopolies to maintain their financial dominance, but there existed no laws against their using their financial might to choose what products could be produced and what products could be invented. Such decisions were most often made far from the public eye. So here we have a climate where a select few are doing everything they can to maintain the money flow from a dependant public, even against the current of discoveries about the hazards of certain existing popular products and the emergence of new technologies such as renewable energy. So if the nation's financial giants wanted to maintain control over the populace on who they were dependant for their income, they needed to control both the message people received through media and the people's ability to observe and limit the activities of the corporations themselves.

A prime and early example of misinformation was given by the tobacco industry: although doctors and scientists alike agreed, in an overwhelming consensus, on the cancer-causing effects of cigarettes, the tobacco industry did all they could to propagate to the public their 'findings' of cherry-picked 'facts' that supported their claim that cigarettes did ~not~ cause cancer. Another more recent example is the 'controversy' over climate change.

Corporations and their lobbyists were quick to learn that the media giants could be a major tool in spreading misinformation, especially when those same giants began to merge and become profit-generating corporations themselves. The goal for both was the same: the shortest path to the money.

Things became worse tenfold when politicians entered the fray: they too needed money for their increasingly expensive and extensive campaigns. Where better to seek campaign finance than the tip of the economic pyramid of accumulated wealth? Of course, in agreements unwritten that defied no existing laws, campaign contributors expect return in legislation favourable to their short-sighted all-be-damned-but profit cause. Things have gotten to a point where it is common for corporate heads and lobbyists become politicians, and vice-versa.

So what is the public reaction to this? The larger part of the population still relies on television, radio and print media as a source of 'news' and information. The only points they have to share with their fellow citizens are those that appear there, but like products in years before, corporations can pick and choose which media content the public sees. Even if a simple and objective solution to the latest 'controversy' exists, if it isn't in the interest of the media corporation (or the groups or corporations funding them), it most certainly won't get the air time it deserves. At best, media giants make the 'compromise' of giving the minority corporate-serving 'point of view' equal airtime as those seeking to simply forward a consensus of (even overwhelming) scientific or objective fact. This only serves to give the minority point of view legitimacy, and makes it appear that their arguments - no matter how fallacious - should be considered equal in value to the real fact of the matter at hand.

Now take into account the 'comfort factor' that leads public opinion in most matters: only those most ignorant (usually 'locals' who have led unchanged lives they are loath to change), or those who 'interests' who have the most at stake, will be sympathetic to extremist positions, but unfortunately, the same are the most vocal and have easier access to media. And any large rally, no matter how fabricated it is, is newsworthy to most media, no matter who its owner is.

Things have gotten so bad that one aware of the facts has to gasp at the blatant disingenuity of certain politicians and pundits, but for some reason their opinions are largely propagated as 'news' and 'fact', and accepted as such. One must also tire at the insistence of certain representing special interests that they represent 'the will of the American people' when in fact they only represent the interests and points of view of a select few.

The divide between the Democratic and Republican party has never been so extreme, and the interests each represent so blatant, since the election of Barack Obama. The weak public-serving Democrats do have a plan to preserve and improve America (and to impede the abuses that brought it to the brink of ruin), but they are no match against the very vocal tactics of the corporate-controlled Republicans who hesitate at nothing to spread the lies and false controversies necessary to distract the public from their aims of allowing corporate America to continue pillaging their country and economy unhindered.

The irony in all this is the fact that it is the most vocal 'non-special-interest' sympathisers to extremist ('ultra-conservative) points of view who are next in line to the chopping block: the middle class upon who corporate America relies for both its production and profit is shrinking. What will happen when this resource disappears? Corporations will probably take the money they have reaped and produce and sell elsewhere. Or try to.

So here we have a cowed and ignorant public vying for the organisations that will eventually do them in. Their fervent clamour against all change (change that very few of them probably understand) is almost religious in nature - they question neither the doctrine nor the motives of those preaching it. I think it is no coincidence that a great majority of these people are fervent members of the lesser christian faiths.

Many Americans have become so comfortably set in their ways that they have lost all will to make any intellectual effort at all; they no longer feel the need to question the truth of a message, even if it has been proven to be blatantly untrue - it is enough that the message 'sounds good' and doesn't conflict with the listener's (often ignorant) experiences and beliefs.

Even people like the above are pardonable if they truly are ignorant, but the fact-aware purveyors of the false messages they believe are not (the worst of the lot is Glenn Beck). All you have to do is ask yourself: 'Qui bono'? What is the point of the message they are spreading, and why are they doing it? My answer: they are corporation/organisation-financed 'antennas' that spread a (false) message to 'the common people' corporations would like to unite into a politics-controlling voting base. By the way, modern religion has been using the same tactic since decades already.

What financial motive would make the Sarah Palin quit her governance at mid-term, and why is she always teaming with the likes of Glenn Beck? They both work for Fox 'News', and I would not at all be surprised if the sources of their respective 'motivations' for spreading ignorance to the ignorant were one and the same. Keep 'em scared, keep 'em ignorant, and, while you're at it, keep 'em on oil and gold rip-offs. Golly gee, you betcha, hallelujah. Thanks for the check, this way to the ballot box.

## Saturday, 15 May 2010

### Dimensions? Really?

In re-examining my 'chain reaction from a perfect state' model, I'm beginning to see the dimensions within as an... unnecessary accessory. It is entirely imaginable that a dimension would be a space-time 'direction' away from a disturbance in space-time 'perfection' - but in the 'state of perfection' that is the base of the model, is the 'no future, no past' concept really needed?

What if this 'perfect state' is just matter (energy) that exists in a form that is simply (for now) undetectable to us? That would mean that the 'dark matter' of the universe would become simply an 'inert force' (or 'force against which we measure the state of all we can detect today'). The model would still work.

I think it is important to first answer all questions about the fabric of all that is around us today before trying to project our thoughts into other directions (dimensions). All that matters in my model for now is the difference between this 'state of perfection' and all matter/energy known to us - studying the 'direction' of (or our direction away from) the state of perfection itself can wait until the problem is solved at our level (or in our dimension). At this point, it is becoming entirely conceivable to me that dimensions don't exist at all.

### A layman's guide to global warming.

I've just finished reading Michael Chrichton's 'State of Fear'. It was quite an amusing read (intrigue, action, steamy stuff), but the book seemed to be (or is trying to be) an exercise in credible scientific representation, complete with footnotes. The latter part even pissed me off - write fiction, point of view, or thesis, but don't place your ass between the chairs of all three.

This book exposed for me many problems in today's society: namely a conflict between science and the status quo of... general ignorance. Therein, habit seems to win over anything else today.

I really don't understand the arguments 'for' or 'against' global warming. What other choice do we have but to trust the ~consensus~ of those who do the fact-based research that we ourselves don't have time to do? Normally we should all be capable of accepting scientific consensus, but what twists opinion seems to be the motivation behind each 'position' - or selection of facts. Either you are happy with the 'business as usual' model (in thinking that, in maintaining the status quo, your progeny will remain 'on top of things'), or you think that change (of habit) can only benefit your progeny (probably meaning that you're a bit further down in the economic consumption chain). Unfortunately for all, especially science, the former position usually has the most voice as far as media is concerned.

I can't even begin to comprehend the complexities of the earth's climate, but one element that I can understand is the effect of CO2 in earth's atmosphere - it is a bona-fide energy encapsulator, and this is an undeniable and measurable human creation - addition, if you will - to the function of earth's climate.

No matter how our climate functions, CO2 can only be an accelerator within: ocean currents, winds, evaporation: the more energy the atmosphere encapsulates, the more dire (and unpredictable) the effects our atmosphere will have upon us. Cooling and warming alike between regions will be amplified, as will the effects of everyday tempestorial phenomenon (tornadoes, thunderstorms). In all the arguments presented, for or against global warming, this one remains the most solid for me.

## Sunday, 9 May 2010

### The origin of everything?

I've had time to think through my earlier physics mulling about the origins of the universe — today I am even more convinced than before that our existence (and that of all matter) is the result of a... glitch.

I was rather elaborate in my earlier posts, so I'll try to paint 'the big picture' of my theory in simpler terms.

Imagine an energetic 'state of perfection' — a mass of energy whose every particle is in an aligned state with its neighbours in both speed and direction (and most probably what we would call 'inert'). Within there is no up, no down, no past, no future. No matter where one moves within, his surroundings would be exactly the same. This perfect state, I think, is the origin of the 'dark matter' that is probably the most dominant energy in our universe - and all universes in all dimensions.

Now imagine a disturbance, an explosion if you will, within. The 'disturbed' energy is forced through other 'inert' energy, disturbing it in turn (think eddies of water), in a 'flow' that has both form and direction.

I think that it is the difference in speed between the two energies that is the 'origin of everything'. I tend to think that the disturbed energy would be 'attracted' back to its original inert state — a force the origin of what we call gravity.

I'll assume that all the matter we see around us is the result of energy moving in the same direction. The form the matter takes depends on the difference in speed between it and its 'perfect' state: I can explain this with two elements, photons and quarks (there are actually sixteen types of elementary particle, but let's just stick to two in this model for simplicity's sake). The larger the difference in speed an energy has with its surrounding 'perfect' state, the higher the gravitational attraction between the two; beyond a certain difference level, energy would develop mass. I think the quark is about at the level where this transformation happens.

If the quark is the base element for mass, everything above it in the construction chain (hadrons, electrons, protons, etc) is but consequential, and the interaction between the elements created is already explained in the laws of physics we know today.

## Friday, 26 February 2010

### Mind vs. Body III

I had a really interesting conversation with a friend last week after work, and part of it revolved around the concept of love. I tried to make a distinction between love and being 'in love', and something clicked: this distinction seemed to me to be the clearest example of the difference between mind and body I have found thus far.

Loving and being 'in love' may seem synonymous to many, but for me they are two very different things. I have felt love for many people I've known and respected - friends, professors, writers, model photographers - but the best way I can describe my personal version of that sentiment is a warm, almost comfortable feeling that almost always brings a smile to my face. Love for me is a sentimental mix of respect, reliability and confidence. As for the physical sensations the sentiment brings me, it is a warm, almost fuzzy feeling I can almost feel leaping between my head and my heart.

Being 'in love', on the other hand, is a purely physical experience that affects the mind in a secondary way, a sensation that hinders or even ignores the mind altogether. I would say that being in love is a purely 'chemical experience' resulting, foremost, from the recognition of a genetically compatible mate, or, secondly, the recognition of a mate fitting (sometimes preconceived) ideals of what a perfect mate would be. The feeling of attraction, the need to touch, to hold, is only physical in its origins, and, although exhilarating, can sometimes be even quite painful.

I like the 'roller coaster' analogy of being in love: it's a good description of the ups and downs resulting from the battle between body and mind. One is first drawn by the animal giddiness and need, then restrained by the mind's 'secondary thoughts' about things such as personal situation, customs or morals.

The 'roller coaster' period always ends. One can have resurgences of the feelings chemical attraction create, but that can only happen if one maintains a positive relationship with one's mate, a relationship based on respect and confidence - or, in one word: love.

## Monday, 8 February 2010

### Reason vs. Culture - my quest for Objective Analysis

Going back to my earlier writing on the conflict between gut and mind, how can one examine oneself to, not only determine the cause and effect of his own behaviour, but to determine the very origins of the cause itself? One has almost to separate oneself from oneself, or, in observing others, forget that one is human altogether.

Speaking on a personal note, I began at a very young age to try to determine the reasoning behind what I was told to do (or the origins of people's definitions of wrong and right) instead of simply following the rule without question; this often led me into conflict with those giving orders and education, and set me apart from everyone else who was content to operate within a fixed set of rules.

I can't say that this made things easy for me. On one hand, I was generally seen as an outcast, as an unpredictable someone who's reactions to 'normal' social interaction was never that expected. Yet on the other hand, over time, I was seen as one who had answers to almost any problem - answers that often, although practicable, were again not those that any 'normal' person would think of. In short, although I was seen as weird by almost everyone I met, I was often useful for the same.

I wouldn't wish a lot of what I went through on anyone, but I have to say that, as far as thought goes, my curiosity, research and conclusions brought me a satisfaction - call it 'solidity' - in my thought processes that resulted in a feeling that was as close to freedom than any definition of the term I can think of. I suppose one could consider this sort of 'outside the box' research process as one particular to someone 'arty', but I more often tend to put my as-objective-as-possible conclusions to more practical purposes.

I'm not saying that anyone unquestionably following the status quo for behaviour is wrong per se; I even think of the behavioural status quo as sort of a machine in which one operating by the rules can even easily find happiness and satisfaction. Yet should the machine as a whole begin to ail or cause problems, it is difficult for one operating unquestionably within the rules to find any solution, especially when that person has never learned to examine the machine and problem analytically from a 'big picture' point of view and not from the perspective of one's role of a cog within. It's hard to fix a motor while you're in it.

## Tuesday, 2 February 2010

### On the Brink II : Areas of Evolution

I think three areas of the world reflect most clearly three different approaches to dealing with the battle between gut and mind: North America, Asia and Europe. I apologise in advance if some of the below seems clichÃ© or even racist, but I'm just trying to outline and define the major tendencies of each population, and some of these may smack of existing prejudices. Don't worry, there's some for all.

North America seems to be taking the 'gut' approach. Almost everyone there judges their existence by their 'comfort level' — an existence centred on possessions and the 'feelings' that these bring to their owner. The question of 'need' is almost totally absent from the question; this has been replaced by a 'comfort level' set by the status quo — or in other words, a comparison of one's own possessions and purchasing power with those of others. As for the mind, for the larger part of the populace, thought and the exchange of ideas and information seems to be centred around comparing/justifying the valour of products, and the 'feelings' that these bring. When one applies this attitude against the real world and our real needs as humans, I almost consider it a state of denial. This is a tendency centred on the majority of the population — the middle class — but even the upper-class North American citizens of today tend to use thought to justify and defend a certain state of comfort.

To the opposite extreme, Asia, especially Japan, has taken the 'mind' approach. Everything there is centred around education and the exchange of 'useful' information and products, an exchange based on a very strict and long-standing protocol of politeness and hierarchy. There, save for a taste for gastronomical pleasures (all the same based on a strict diet) and 'identity' objects, the body seemingly does not enter the equation in matters of sex and comfort — the 'usefulness' of each act is prioritised. In fact, unhappiness and discomfort, or an enviable state almost akin to martyrdom, is embraced by the general populace as a sign that the sufferer is making a 'sacrifice' to the 'greater good' of the community and is perpetuating its strict moral laws and behaviour. This tendency can be found through all levels of Japanese society.

Europe seems to lie almost exactly between the two. Intelligence and education are indeed a major part of European culture, but the tools gained there are used, in a very selective and 'network-connected' way, to gain personal stature within a selective community network and to fulfil an often very individualistic sense of comfort, an egotistical sense of comfort that I would almost call 'self-satisfaction'. Contrary to the other two areas of evolution, the general tendency seems to diminish through the lower classes towards a level of comfort that is defined by one's usefulness and standing in an often very small community.

Each path is in some way in conflict with our basic human nature, especially where reproductive habits are concerned. The human tendency to seek multiple (and always younger) partners is almost forgiven there, and at least until recent years, being/having a mistress/lover had an almost respected community statute of its own — but within a couple, it creates all the usual problems. Infidelity in Asia is considered wrong, but the social rigour and lack of attention to bodily comfort in the greater culture often pushes people (mostly males) into infidelity; what's more, the wronged gain stature by their 'martyrdom', or the sacrifice they make to preserve the family stature in suppressing the quite natural emotions of betrayal and outrage that occur from such circumstances. American pairing habits, especially in the upper-middle class (the highest follow a protocol almost European), is a confusing and ill-definable affair, most likely because their concern with an immediate and ever-changing definition of 'comfort'.

In all, each culture's means of dealing with the conflict between gut and mind is defined by the stress they place on each: cancel one, and the other suffers.

## Monday, 25 January 2010

### On the Brink : Between Gut and Mind

Humans are in a quandary. Until relatively recently in our history, evolution has made us a creature capable of surviving in climates and situations normally inhospitable to any creature incapable of thought. But here's the problem: technological advances, and the excessive riches generated thereof, have eliminated any need or even motivation to use the tool — thought — that allowed us to survive thus far.

What separates us from animals is our ability to analyse our perceptions and memories, and constantly return to them and re-analyse them at will, thus making it possible to return to our mistakes and successes again and again and try them against every new tool we learn. Yet this 'second level' is only a layer added to the basic functions we share with animals — functions that, in my opinion, could work on an animalistic scale quite well on their own — perception-based instinctive behaviour and our empirical memories of our experiences with the same. From here on I'll call our thought ability 'mind' and our more animalistic tendencies 'gut'.

Our minds are a funny thing, as they can even work against us: not only is it possible to relive certain experiences through our memories, it is also possible to arrive at any conclusion we want based on the same, or in other words, re-invent our past (or ignore parts of it or all of it altogether). In our primitive environment, still tightly entwined with the rules and dangers of nature, such tendencies would most likely mean certain death. Yet today such dangers no longer exist: the enemy most present in our minds is 'discomfort' and the (armed) irrationality (in our opinion) of other (groups of) humans.

Comfort is a state that has no dependence at all on thought; in fact, I would say that it is a 'gut' state of satisfaction whose continuity would be destroyed by any notion of thought. Take our sexual practices for example, and try to sum and predict our pleasurable sensations in a rational way: doing so would distract from and dilute the very sensations we take such pleasure in.

I'd almost like to think of the interaction between gut and mind to be something like computer and program(mer): new routines, once imagined and 'proven', can be fed into the machine and thus modify its function. In short, our lives are an ever-evolving computer program fed into a base and never-changing hardware: push certain physical buttons and certain things happen, but with time and new routines, the base reaction would be modified by later-added sub-routines.

So basically our problem is this: we are a species whose wiring, made for a harsher environment and direct confrontations, is at odds with the programming dictated by the status quo of today. Today's status quo is an education that is still partially based, in many ways, on the 'dangers' of years before — dangers that, for most of us, only exist in our imaginations. This is the reason for the irrational and self-contradicting behaviour that is so widespread today.

## Saturday, 2 January 2010

### Pure at the source - The Human Idea - Religion

There's a common thread through many subjects that I am interested in - religion, politics, inventions, economy: an original idea conceived with the interests of the many at heart. Unfortunately, with time and the failings of human nature, that idea across almost all topics has often been corrupted or eradicated beyond all recognition. There has to be some way of both recognising and impeding this process.

Christian religion began with a group of people who really did believe that Jesus was 'the anointed one', a claim that was punishable by death under then Judaic law if the pretender was not found 'fit' by the religious elders to fill the role of 'chosen by god' that was 'King' then. Jesus' "left wing" views were even more undesirable to the elders because the region, almost the Jewish people as a whole, were under the Roman boot (sandal) then; yet it is understandable that his teachings made a rather marked break with the tyranny of the times, almost as the 'hippy' movement was to the Vietnam war era. In any case, this movement preaching humility and peace had to spend its first years of existence in seclusion and hiding. The Christian doctrine in its first years followed Judaic law (Jesus in his entire lifetime had never a thought about starting a new religion), but the writ of Jesus' followers (real or 'spiritual'), and the follower's followers, soon became a sort of bible of their own. Jesus' reputation as a Ghandi-like resistant to the Roman occupier made stories of his life popular to an almost enslaved people; with this popularity came the corruption and the purposeful exploitation and misinterpretation of the original idea.

Even before the Christian religion had conquered a failing Rome seeking to regain the support of the already-converted masses, confusion had already set in. With the masses came political leadership, and the differing political views and motives of the christian leaders divided the faith into several factions: the Messianic Jews, for example, retained most everything from Judaic teachings in retaining their belief that Jesus was indeed the real messiah; Catholicism, the most aggressively political Christian faction, created a marked break with the rest of Christian teaching (while attempting to retain its followers) by adopting Mary Magdalene as the figurehead of their religion (although their real teachings, compared to those of Jesus' - hardly mention her). The latter faction was also responsible for effacing most every Pagan holiday under a 'new' Christian celebration (sometimes even blatantly 'invented' from other popular religions, such as the largely undocumented story of Jesus' birth being a carbon copy of that of Mythra - or even Moses'), and replacing every existing Pagan (or other) temple on Christian 'territory' with a temple or church.

I want to underline the fact that the source of the 'Christian fracture' was political motive, as was the corruption. Although many will contest the above (through 'deconstructionism' and arguments using selective facts), the pattern holds true to one recurring through all of humanity's history: the few leading (and reaping from) the many, and their efforts to keep their privileged position.

This tendency doesn't apply only to religion: once any sort of movement at all develops a leadership that depends (or counts on) those following a status quo of their dictate, and the leadership corrupts/perverts/adds to the the movement's original message to further their own ends, the idea behind the movement's origins take on much less importance. In fact, after a movement and its corrupted dogma conquers the majority of a society loathe to think outside of the status quo, any discussion about the 'original idea' hardly matters at all.

This leads in to economics. More later.

I'll add this here because it is in the same line with the rest - but it is a bit of a rant, as I was biting my tongue as I wrote the rest. I'd like to express my dismay - and disgust - that all that's done, 'positive' and negative, in religion's name.

First off, there are thousands of people today preaching exactly what Jesus did thousands of years ago. In fact, I'd say that most of his teachings are the moral status quo for most civilised society. Set that aside, and what do we have? Miracles. Miracles that are not only incredible (read the latter word in the "not credible" sense), but never seen by anyone but the most fervent of 'believers'. In short, religion today to most of us is as useful as a magician's mumbo-jumbo, as it might as well be all illusion.

So look at what is done in 'religion's name' today - persecution, wars and charity. Persecution and war are easy enough to condemn, but charity should be a much harder target to criticise - if it wasn't such a large source of income for many churches.

I of course subscribe to aiding the lesser privileged/resourced, but not if part of my donation will be taken as 'profit' - that is to say, for uses other than providing the resources needed to transfer/transform my donation into a place and form usable by the person I'd like to help. If any church takes part of a donation destined to an underprivileged one for funding the teaching/upkeep of their political domination, they are in fact exploiting the underprivileged, and treating them almost as hostages. This technique has been used many times in the past by many organisations, and condemned as the crime it is when discovered, but religion has been mysteriously exempt from a similar examination.