The Web Today: a Sea of (mis-)information.

Aside from a few neurological-aspect details (that I'm still mulling over), I've had little to add over the past year to my earlier posts, but what has changed in that time is our 'leader-decider-provider's methods of dealing with what seems to be the larger population's state of dependency upon them.

The internet today is an accumulation of around twenty years of data. In the earliest days, everyone had their own homepage, blog, or some other form of content, but it didn't seem to be human habit to date any of this data (unless the csm, like this one, did it for us), and even media and software developers seemed to share the same oversight. Google does have a 'tool' that allows us to search for results within a certain time span, but it is not settable by default (please correct me on this if I am wrong). Add to this the increasing corporate and for-pay-friendly search results returned to us by Google, and the result is: a) a layer of for-pay content/wares that only may concern our searches, and b) a second layer of results deemed 'most relevant' that have origins anywhere in time. Add again to this Google's recent seeming change to their algorithm that 'culls' results they deem 'not relevent': in short, any search query today about anything not in the 'most popular' or 'most sold' (or 'most paid for') category will result in an incomprehensible mess.

And all this in spite of today's (would-be) AI technology: the only thing to reasonably conclude from this continued trend is that Google must like it that way.

What inspired this rant: a week-end of mostly-lost time researching a means to encapsulate Drupal variables. Some of the methods I found turned out to be, only after dozens of pages of reading (across several websites, because the Drupal documentation itself, in addition to being largely un-dated (in any obvious way), is mostly user-contributed, thus hopelessly incomplete), completely non-sequitur to any recent version of Drupal.  Searching for other non-Drupal methods of capturing PHP variables buried under a layer of Twig resulted in more of the same. In the end, what I was looking for turned out to be hiding in plain sight: an extension dating back to Drupal 6 (we are on version 9 today) that has been maintained (in spite of what Google results told me by not turning up recent (un-dated) additions to the module's page), and a plug-in to the IDE (that is seemingly not, at first sight, an IDE) that I'm already using (for free!).

And yet again add to this efforts by the least-well-intentioned parts of humanity to 'drown' any reasoned or fact-based searches in pointless, credulance-seeking 'noise': with Google judging the value of any content 'for' us, and there being no other well-performing alternative to it on the market, anyone looking for anything corresponding to reality (and not 'feelings' or 'concepts' or 'popularity'), without a LOT of effort (and just as many bullshit-detecting abilities), are almost just as much in the dark today as they were thirty years ago.

Those Who Would Let Other Humans Think 'for' Them.

The Programmable Human

Even before anything we learn in life, survival is the most basic function/instinct of the 'human machine': every move we make, even scratching our noses, is in the interest of bodily well-being, and our emotions, or our trainable 'sub-conscious value judgement' system, is the brain's reward or discomfort response to any given situation: without this basic system, we wouldn't be motivated to move or do/think anything at all.

From our very basic, perhaps even hard-wired, emotional responses to everything 'familiar' to us in early life, that is to say things like 'mother', 'milk' and 'warmth', we learn to expand our sphere of acceptance to other 'trusted' useful-for-survival tools shown to us by our also-expanding circle of 'trusted protectors', people usually presented to us by already-accepted trusted protectors. Through this we 're-train' our initial fear response to those people, animals and things unfamiliar to us, and before long in life our brains will have established a library of 'recognised' entities that no longer incite any sense of fear and/or revulsion. Even further on in life, we are able to identify the 'type' of person or thing that our peers and protectors obey/use, and accept those into our sphere of fear-free acceptance and trust as well. To the pre-adolescent, anything that has become part of this sphere is their 'trusted normal',² and they will still have a fear response (to varying degrees) of anything outside of it.

Here we should also consider how the brain works on a subconscious and conscious level: what we call our 'consciousness' only seems to 'see' a small percentage of what our senses percieve, and the content of the relayed information seems to be dictated by whatever our subconscious deems 'important' to it (or its survival): this 'importance' is dictated by all the '(what is) safe bubble' training described above. Two people in the exact same situation may 'see' different things: if one has developed an affection for, say, a red ball, if they are placed in a warehouse full of jumbled toys, they will 'see' red balls everywhere (and have a positive 'reward' emotional response upon the sight of one), whereas someone else without that experience may not notice them at all. So, not only does our early-life experience determine what and who we trust (and what we fear outside of that), it can even determine how we perceive the world around us.

In 'learning' through the above imitated example and empirical experience, there is rarely (if) any call for us to make a personal assessment of any 'lesson' given³: if the 'trusted' human showing us the example is part of what we 'know', and the result of whatever lesson they give doesn't affect whatever notion of comfort we've developed until then, we have more or less the tendency to simply accept it as 'good' (for our survival). In fact, I would like to propose that, at this stage, the very definition of 'good' and 'bad', outside of physical pain or discomfort, is how familiar whatever being proposed to us is.

Some would like to call our early-life experience 'education', but if what is affecting our internal brain function is the direct result of our environment or outside, imitated-without-question example, programming would be a better descriptive term.

It remains to note that, for humanity, in times where we were still faced with the challenges of nature, nature was just as much, if not more, our education than the examples our protectors set for us: our emotional reactions to all that dangerous (or unfamiliar) to us most likely determined our chances of survival. As humanity began to gather in greater numbers, and thus protect itself from and distance itself from the tests of nature, the dangers in the world around us became less 'real' (almost distant threats, scary tales, really), but the emotional responses that were a defense to these remained quite intact; it's not for nothing that many of us still get a 'thrill' out of horror films and ghost stories still today.

But to not digress, through controlling the environment, clan members, culture, knowledge, and customs of any given settlement, it became possible to 'homogenise' the early-life experience of its younger members, that is to say, impregnate their minds with a 'sameness' with each other, and also impregnate their minds with a fear of all those not 'like' them.

Our around-adolescence 'Switch' to critical thought: a tool no longer needed.

When we come to the point in our lives when the brain gains the ability to discover and analyse (aka 'critical thought'), we suddenly are able to, instead of learning through simple imitation and obedience, question and examine everything we've learned to that point, should those lessons instil emotions of doubt and/or discomfort, and this analysis can even extend to those who were the source of these lessons.¹ I think it's important to mention the latter because, from our emergence from nature, our greatest teacher was no longer nature, but other humans.

Yet in that time when we lived in competition with creatures of other species, and nature itself, we were often obliged to test those early-life lessons empirically, and, using our critical thought abilities, eliminate, modify and/or improve those found wanting, and this also became essential to our survival.  Again (from earlier posts), the Australian aboriginal 'walkabout' is a still-existing 'coming of age' tradition that is a perfect example of this: either the adolescent practically uses/tests all they've learned until then, or the result would almost certainly be death.

But once humans became more sedentary in greater numbers, the 'need' for critical thought waned: agriculture and animal husbandry techniques could be passed down, unchallenged and unchanged, through the generations, and distributed roles in any given settlement meant that a single human was no longer required to learn a full survival skill set. Critical thought seems to have been reserved for those distributing roles and setting the rules, but where 'tradition' became a concept and/or rule, it most likely became possible to propagate knowledge and techniques, through simple example and imitation, through the generations.

Critical Thought and Ambition: 'Blocking The Switch'.

Yet if a lesser-able human wanted to 'rise above' a survive-through-imitation (largely non-critically-thinking) settlement whose hierarchy was dictated by age or ability/strength, they had little choice but to resort to critical thought to dominate non-critical thinkers which was, not without irony, a situation much like, in days before, a human who hoped to emerge victorious from a competition with creatures more agile or stronger than they. And all one had to do is transition to, and develop, critical thought enough to outwit or manipulate those higher up in the feeding chain, or convince/manipulate enough humans to create an army of their own against the same.

And once in their desired position, it is obvious that many, if not most, of history's leaders of all calibre saw that a maintained state of non-critically-thinking, childlike survival-dependance mental in an adult population would create a faithful, dependant, unquestioning, conformist, thus controllable, following. The most useful tool to this end was transposing the child's protector-dependant 'rule-based' (or punishment) environment onto an adult population, thus convincing any child in that society that that childhood state was perpetual, or in other words, convincing them that there was nothing to transition to, that there was no other state of being in which it is possible to survive,  which meant that, to the follower-believers, everything outside that 'conform/obey-or-else' environment became a great, fear-inducing 'unknown'.

Through history, the forms this tool took were many: some of history's leaders simply jailed or eliminated all those who would 'dare' question, counter or ignore their authority and dictate (thus reinforcing the no-example-to-transition-to state), and yet others found it useful to hide behind psychology-manipulating concept-tools that both tapped into the immature human's fear of separation from their 'protector-provider' (and the 'known, same' following who obeyed their dictate), their fear of punishment, and their most innate and unthinkingly instinctive fear of death (promise of immortality, etc.). No matter the tool used to get them there, the definition of 'good' for a human in this arrested state about amounts to 'same', that is to say, 'same' as whatever they (and others 'like them' following/thought-dependant on the same 'leader') were programmed with until then.

And adult humans in this state are very, very, manipulable and corruptible: throw a few scraps from the leader's follower-fed table to a few 'chosen' (-by-the-leader) followers, and they eerily almost instantaneously transform from unquestioning followers of the leader's dictate into enforcers of the same: again, no matter if their form is superstitious-threat or demonstrable-threat based, examples of the resulting three-level dictatorial hierarchy model (see: of Shepherds, Sheep-dogs and Sheep) can be seen all through history.

The Above transposed onto Modern Society.

Many in more education-and-technology developed societies would like to think themselves exempt from, or immune to, the above dictatorial systems, but they seem strangely blind to the existence of the same, in the form of sub-cultures, in their own would-be democracies: if at least a majority of a population that would call itself a democracy isn't thinking for themselves, it isn't one.

Some of the earlier-described switch-blocking tools have proven so effective over the millennia that, even in this post-enlightenment, dwindling-superstition, information-laden world we live in today, a few quite unworthy-of-leadership (or even consultation) humans are desperately trying to hang onto them through attempting to even further intellectually cripple future would-be followers (while setting things up for an easier elimination of future dissenters). And this seems to be the state of the things in the U.S. today.

But things have evolved a bit further than that: those who would shape society through hiding behind imaginary proxies (while shifting attention, responsibility and accountability onto the same), have provided those dictating today's economy with a useful example: since Reagan (and some would say earlier), fear-of-other-spreading politicians have served as very effective distractions from those who are really doing the decision-making, those who decide which products we consume, all while fighting amongst themselves to be the one to control the whole of the cash-cow that is our thoughtless complacency: even those consumers aware of this situation are guilty of supporting it to some degree, but in today's world, it has become near impossible to find any other alternative to it. But the battle for a real consumer awareness (thus a change to the status quo) has only just begun.

One would think that the advent of the internet would have facilitated the dissemination of rational, educated, demonstrable thoughts and ideas to the world, but it has also made it easier for would-be dictators (and their followers) to spread disinformation (fear), bigotry (fear), and irrational fear-of-'other'(-than-followed-dictate) ideas (also fear), and experience has shown us that those who 'need' to make the most noise are often those less deserving of our attention... but to one seeing our networks and screens monopolised by this desperate brouhaha, it may seem that our world is dominated by it, but a closer examination of the declining-criminality-and-war real state of things shows that this is not so.

Filling the Void.

Many would-be dictators disparage the loss of the 'community' aspect that their respective regimes used to bring, and it is true that, at least for the time being, there is not much on the horizon to fill the void, but, in this author's humble opinion, this is largely due to the demoralisation-effect that their respective noise-machines are making (which makes their complaints disingenuous to the core). And the answer to this noise, at least for the time being, seems to be but something best described as a disparate, too-multi-faceted (and distracting-from-real-problem) utopic fog of ambiguity, because, yes, although seemingly well-intentioned, many who would like to make a safe place for themselves in society are not (critically-)thinking beyond the survive-by-imitation bubble of their own 'identity' (sense of comfort, 'self'), either.

So, against a 'united in sameness' (and fear-of-different-from-that) voter bloc, what do we have to counter it? For the time being, all we have is a largely silent 'meh' (non-)voter bloc peppered with small-in-comparison 'identity' groups. Concerning the latter, the focus should be on the non-rational fear-of-different survive-through-imitation(-panderers) causing the exclusion, not the excluded. Already, a 'united against all forms of bigotry'⁴ force would be one to reckon with.

The 'meh' (non-)voter bloc seems to feel that their voice doesn't count, that their voice doesn't matter... but are most of us not living in a democracy? What if we replace the centuries-old 'tradition' of weekly irrational-and-indemonstrable-superstition-and-fear-themed meetings with others that are places to make our thoughts as individuals heard and recorded, to compare, discuss, and morph our individual thoughts into consensus?⁴ If such a thing were organised around administrative communities from a grassroots level, and the results published to recorded history (online) where others can see and compare (and think about!) the results, hell, I'd participate. And that also could be a force for the ignorance-exploiters-and-panderers-that-be to reckon with.

In short, while the 'follow-minded' go to rallies organised 'for' them by those who dictate 'for' them what's 'good' or 'bad' 'for' them, we who 'dare' think for ourselves would better organise meetings where we can decide, between ourselves, what's good or bad for ourselves.

---

1 - In any case, it has been widely demonstrated that the brain undergoes a 'pruning' process around adolescence.
2 - This in itself is complex: a child knowing nothing but squalor might not perceive this state as 'uncomfortable'.
3 - Emotions such as empathy (sense of sharing, and the brain 'rewards' thereof), may come into play here, but omitted for simplicity's sake.
4 - No, 'thwarting our promotion of bigotry' is not bigotry.
5 - Does this remind anyone else of anything Classical Greece taught us?

Independence of Mind without Resources

I come from a position of disadvantage. I had no family fortune (or hardly any help at all, for that matter) to get me going in life. I am doing trades that have nothing to do with my education (an education that, as the promised end result was a ('successful') 'being like everyone else') I did not understand or even see the point of at the time), so became entirely dependant on 'networking' for finding work (as there are few 'traditional' companies who would take my five-page-long multi-trade CV seriously). In fact, in all my 47 years, I have held two full-time salary jobs: the first convinced me to get the hell out of that 'jumping through hoops for rewards' rut and do something for myself, and the second... well, was so 'easy' that it temporarily corrupted my results-based work-ethic (and I doubt that I'll ever see an opportunity like that again).

So when one is without resources, they have only their willingness to work to count on, and intelligence (education, experience, imagination) comes into play, too. But when confronted with real-world situations, we run into a problem: (comfortable) humans with resources are, paradoxically, often those with the least will to work and imagination. So when I, seeking resources, show up with my ideas and willingness to work, the resource-provider has the option of just taking the former... and, if my situation of precarity (foreigner without resources) becomes too evident, they have the additional option of making me do all the work, then reneging on their side of the deal. It was often like this until I became less trusting of 'the better angels of our nature' (but I still fail there from time to time).

But my road to this understanding was a long one. I began from a place of utter naiveté (my childhood was fairly devoid of 'normal' human interaction), a (childhood) lack-of-affection-generated too-eagerness-to-please, and a total disability when it came to dealing with dishonesty (I tended to wax credulous in reaction to even outrageously dishonest claims or blame-responsibility displacing (on me)). All of this tended to lend value to the existence of others around me, and none to my own. And a childhood-instilled lack of confidence in myself added to the mix: I had a hard time demanding a decent wage for my work (because I (somehow) felt that I didn't 'deserve so much') until recently. Also figuring prominently was my (also childhood-instilled) credulty - and fear - of authority: only through direct work with such supposed 'adults' was I able to distill that misconception, because many 'authority figures', most all of them in places of comfort, are actually lesser beings (utility-and-survival-wise) than the average worker, with less imagination, too.

Am I laying blame for all that? It's hard to, because everyone involved was most likely convinced that they were doing the 'right thing' (at the time they were doing it). And humans with no value-judgement abilities (or desire or will to learn to or accept the responsibility for making the same) will repeat the same patterns as long as it 'works' for them (meaning: as long as it doesn't put their survival (comfort) in jeopardy). Some concerned actors probably still don't understand the error of their ways even today. When considering such things ('fault') it's hugely important to consider their motivation, and whether they were knowingly doing damage/taking advantage... and that's often hard to determine, as feigned indigation is a common 'defence' in situations of idea-reality discord/dishonesty, too.

The curse is triple when one considers that, with that understanding, not only will a resource(-or-safety-net)-free person be sure to be exploited, they will often be obliged to accept that exploitation with a full understanding of the imbalance of it all... or retire from society completely. But how can one do that without any resources of one's own and survive?

Revising Copyright: Quality Control + the Attribution System.

Already I'm dismayed at seeing those who have done no work benefit from the invention/work of others. Only the morally bankrupt (voir: a socio/psycho-path) could ever do this. Damn Edison creating the 'model' of the investor (they who have already profited from/exploited from the work of others) getting the credit and profit from an inventor's innovation and work, and not the inventor. Who actually invented the lightbulb? You probably still have no idea.

But with that little rant out of the way, how do we treat copyrighted material in this internet age?

The powers-that(-would)-be seem to be clinging 'all or nothing' desperately to an old-world copyright system, and it is failing them, as it is impossible to locate and control all points of data exchange. Not only do their vain attempts to locate remove, paywall or monetise copyrighted material fail, but their efforts can become an incentive to piracy.

It goes beyond there: especially annoying is the 'copyright paranoia' reigning on one of the world's principle sources of information, Wikipedia: magazine and album cover-image use is restricted to an article about that magazine or album, making it impossible to use such art for articles on a band member or book author. As a demonstration of this last point, I am at present working on the article about Camera magazine editor Allan Porter, and I cannot use any images of the books he is the author of or worked on. Even the portraits of himself (given to me by himself) are under strict control, and cannot be above a certain pixel dimension. I do understand the reasoning behind this, but this tongue-tied practice is only katowing to (thus enforcing) the existing 'system' without doing anything at all to change it.

It's about the quality, stupid.

I thought this even back in Napster days, when the music industry moguls were doing their all to track down and remove/paywall any instances of 'their' product. The irony is that the solution to their dilemma existed already in the quality standards of online music: 128kb/s, a quality comparable to a radio transmission, is palpably better in quality than the 96kb/s some 'sharers' used to save a still-slow-internet bandwidth. Yet who would want to listen to the latter in their hi-fi stereo system? It might be interesting to consider a system where only the free distribution of music above a certain bitrate is considered as piracy.

The same goes for images: even from my photographer point of view, I consider any image I 'put out there' as 'lost' (that it will be freely exchanged and used), and it is for that that I am very careful to only publish images below a certain pixel dimension online.

Automatic Attribution

It would even seem that a free distribution of low-quality media would benefit its authors from an advertising standpoint, but... it is still rare to see an attribution on any web-published media even today. So how can we easily attribute a work to its author?

I think the solution lies in something similar to the EXIF data attached to most modern digital images: were this sort of 'source' info be attached to all file-format data that circulated on the web, we would have no more need to add/reference (often ignored, and still-rudimentary) license data, and our website applications could read it and attribute a maybe link-accreditation (overlay for images, a notification for music, for example), automatically.... and this would demonstrably be a boon-benefit to media authors.

And it doesn't end there: this ties into the RDF 'claim attribution' system I am developing, as this add-on would allow the media itself to be perfectly integrated into the 'data-cloud' that would be any event at any given point in time... but, once again, I digress.

ANN (Artificial Neural Network) OCR: A likely dead-end method. Considering a new approach.

In my recent dives into AI-dependant endeavours, I've been presented with the gargantuan task of extracting data from countless pages of printed, and often ancient, text, and in every, I've run up against the same obstacle: the limitations of Artificial Neural Network (henceforth 'ANN')-dependant OCR.

For starters, ANN is but an exercise in comparison: it contains none of the logic or other processes that the human brain uses to differentiate text from background, identify text as text, or identify character forms (why is an 'a' not a 'd', and what characteristics do each have?). Instead, it 'remembers' through on a library of labelled 'samples' (images of 'a's named 'a') and 'recognises' by detecting these patterns in any given input image... and in many OCR application, the analysis stops there. What's more, ANN is a 'black box': we know whats in the sample library, and we know what the output is, but we don't know at all what the computer 'sees' and retains as a 'positive' match. Of course it would be possible to capture this (save the output of every network step), but I do not think this would aid the shortcomings just mentioned.

The present logic-less method may also be subject to over-training: the larger the sample library, especially considering all the forms (serif, sans serif, italic, scripted, etc.) a letter may have, the more the chance that the computer may find 'false positives'; the only way to avoid this is to do further training, and/or do a training specific to each document, a procedure which would limit the required library (character styles) and thus reduce error. But this, and further adaptation, requires human intervention, and still we have no means of intervening or monitoring the 'recognition' process. Also absent from this system is a probability determination (it is present, but as an 'accepted' threshold programmed into the application itself), and this would prove useful in further character and word analysis.

And all the above is specific to plain text on an uncluttered background: what of text on maps, partly-tree-covered billboards, art, and multi-coloured (and overlapping) layouts? The human brain 'extracts' character data quite well in these conditions; therein are other deduction/induction processes absent from ANN as well.

Considering Human 'text recognition' as a model.

Like many other functions of the human brain, text recognition seems to function as an independent 'module' that contributes its output to the overall thought/analysis process of any given situation. It requires creation, then training, though: a dog, for example, might recognise text (or any other human-made entity) as 'not natural', but the analysis ends there, as it has not learned that certain forms have meaning (beyond 'function'), and may so ignore them completely; a human, when presented with text in a language they were not trained in, may recognise the characters as 'text' (and here there are other ANN-absent rules of logic at work here), but that's about it.

What constitutes a 'recognised character'? Every alphabet has a logic to it: a 'b', for example, in most every circumstance, is a round-ish shape to the lower right of a vertical-ish line; stray from this, and the human brain won't recognise it as a 'b' anymore. In using the exact same forms, we can create p, a, d, and q as well... the only thing differentiating them is position and size. In fact, in all, the Roman alphabet consists of less than a dozen 'logic shapes'.

Not only can the human brain detect and identify these forms: it can also 'fill in the blanks' in situations like, say, a tree branch covering a billboard: the overall identifaction process seems to be an initial 'text, not text' separation, the removal of 'not text' from the picture, then it seems to 'imagine' what the covered 'missing bits' would be, and this is submitted for further analysis.

But the same holds true in cases where a character is badly printed, super-stylised, missing bits, etc.: in fact, if a word is not instantly readable (and this is a highly-trained process in itself), the brain seems to 'dig down' a level to determine what the 'missing' character should be, and 'matches' against that, and this is a whole other level of analysis (absent from ANN). In fact, were we able to extract the probability of a character match of every given character of any given word and compare this to to a dictionary, we would not only create another probability (the 'refined' chances of 'x' character being 'y'), we would also have a means for the computer to... train itself.

Gravity and Light (energy) is Everything.

Everything is gravity. Everything is light. Everything is both, and they're indissociable. In fact, the two together are a constant in itself, a constant that represents the base, or the base function, if you will, of everything existing in our universe.

The Inverse Squared law is omnipresent in both gravitational equations and magnetism (note: in an earlier post, I hypothesise that both are a variation of the same thing): the closer one measures to a given particle, the higher its gravitational pull, in a proportionately constant way. Concerning gravitation, Newton states:

"I ſay that a corpuſcle placed without the ſphærical ſuperficies is attracted towards the centre of the ſphere with a force reciprocally proportional to the ſquare of its diſtance from that centre."

- Issac Newton,

"The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy",
volume I, proposition LXXI

Or, 'translated' into modern equation form:

$F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}\ $

For much of modern physics, this 'law' holds true until we reach a hard-to-observe (-and-never-observed) sub-atomic level, but 'goes west' when immersed in the sea of mathematical hypotheticae beyond. I'd like to maintain that Newton's observation holds true all the way down, but to do so I must explain my ideas on the dynamics that lead to this.

Every Particle: a Point Divided.

For the purpose of this article, 'particle' designates any non-construct manifestation of energy, that is to say any single photon, quark, electron, etc., (without considering later dynamics that will be explained later).

Where there is a particle, there is gravity. Every particle, isolated, is in a 'stable' state, an energy maintaining a constant 'resistance' against that gravitational force, in an action that could almost be considered an orbit. Gravity is considered to be a 'weak' force (not to be confused with the actual 'weak force' physics concept), as the gravity emanating from a single particle is almost immeasurable, and only combined (into a mass) does it begin to gain discernibility, but we think that because we can only approach and observe said particle outside a certain distance.

And it's that concept of 'distance' that has to change: it's only recently that we've begun to understand that it is quite possible, and quite normal, to observe and manipulate physics phenomena below the level of human observation; in the present day, we seem to have paused at the sub-atomic level, but, as a camera zooming in from a view of the entire earth to a single electron, the plunge can go far, far, beyond the latter point.

We seem to apply the 'inverse square' observation without considering what may happen at that extreme depth (of observation). Already we know that if we take the idea of a hydrogen atom and 'blow up' its proton to the size of a pea, one would need a football stadium to contain the orbit of the electron around it. And already the 'binding strength' (that physics does not consider as gravity) is quite strong. So should we retain the distance-attraction-strength aspects of the above model (because the 'has mass' atom model itself is not what we're looking at, here), we see that, at that level, the electron (particle) is still quite 'far away' from the point attracting it. But what if we were to take this dynamic to an even deeper level, even closer to any given point of attraction, within a particle itself?

Before we go there, I'd like to return to the 'particle stability' dynamic. As it has already been observed, different particles have different energy levels: I'd like to propose that that energy level is directly proportional to the distance from the 'centre point' it is bound to, that is to say, the source of the gravitational force. The basic rule (here) is: to maintain particle stability, the closer an energy is to its source of gravity, the higher it has to be. In fact, if we can measure accurately the energy level of any given particle, using the inverse-square observation, we should be able to calculate that energy's distance from the centre of gravitational pull attracting it. So if we were to consider the gravity from the 'weak bind' hydrogen atom model, and increase that inverse-squared down to the level of a single particle, the gravitational pull there must be enormous indeed... thus so must be the energy levels required to maintain that state at that level, also.

Side-note: Light (EMR) is a particle; everything above (in energy level) is two halves of one. 

To avoid referring readers to earlier posts, I'd like to resume these briefly here: there I posit that any ElectroMagnetic Radiation (EMR) 'boosted' above a gamma-level energy level will split into two 'halves', and that their 'forward' light-speed-constant (in relation to their respective points of origin) will be no more. These two 'halves' will have what modern physics calls 'charge', and they will be opposite, that is to say, positive and negative. Consider a waveform with a line down the centre of its path: everything above will be 'positive', and everything below 'negative'. Yet, although separate, those two halves are still one unique entity. This should not be confused with Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance' because, although the effects of this phenomena would be the same, his hypothesis (rather, his reflections on someone else's work) about the creation of that condition is quite different.

I suppose that I should also outline what might happen after that split: here I posit that the halves of a 'split fermion', since they are halves of a unique 'thing', will not be attracted to each other, and cannot annihilate each other, but opposing halves of two different particles can, or at least they'll try. Since the respective particle energies are close enough to their respective gravitational centres to allow another opposing particle half to get close enough to be captured by the enormous gravitational draw at that proximity, the two will attempt to bind, in a dynamic modern physics calls 'the strong force'. I won't get into the dynamics of 'particle(-half) binding' here, but the only 'stable' particle-half combination seems to be a trio, or two positives and one negative, or vice versa, locked in an eternal inter-annihilation struggle, and, depending on the polarity, the result is an either proton or neutron hadron... and this brings us back up to the atomic-level physics we know.

Model conclusion

I've done my best to explain my ideas about an 'energy vs. gravity' dynamic of any given particle in the simplest way possible (and I hope I succeeded), but if any of this stands to testing, another reality becomes true: any single particle, that is to say: photons, quarks (all 'colours'), electrons (and positrons), neutrinos, etc., are but variations of the same thing.

Dealing with Depression

I try to make my public profile a 'progressive, positive' one, but sometimes my frustrations with, in maintaining as much integrity as I can, eking out a living in an increasingly shallow, between-(programmed)-classes-exploitative world: we should be helping each other overcome our weaknesses, not using them as leverage to gain control over each other and all (and all the ill-gotten 'reward' that that brings).

And in this 'survive by imitation (so jump through these hoops, or else!)' society (henceforth STI), I tend to be out of even the out-group; my seeking to understand in-group behaviour itself seems to be enough for any STI to put me into the out-group, and I have never learned to just 'fake it' (and since I can't read minds, that is probably an impossible task). And when I explain to my clients the solution for a relatively simple problem (so they won't have to call me next time), I get looked at like I'm from another planet, but my message through doing that is simple: 'Anyone can do this, so save your money for real problems'... but when things get tight, I've learned to do that less (but always feel bad about it).

My underlining integrity also saddles me with an inability to compete with others in the market: I still fondly remember the day where some 'gung-ho' new employee in one of my client companies would rather call someone else (less aware?) than face up to their fucking up a system I built for said client company... not only did I eventually have to witness that sort of manipulation, but I had to witness the lie-filled play-acting of 'the other guy'... and had to watch my clients falling for it (because, as they new nothing about 'how' it worked (only that it did, then didn't), how could they tell the difference). And from then on the gung-ho grudge-holder tried tapping every ensuing problem on me (but it was really a chain reaction based in their fuck-up)... I have no weapons against that sort of dishonesty, so I ended up just dropping them from my client list (which is what gung-ho wanted anyway).

But by doing that, I'm short-changing myself in another way: the brain needs 'reward' situations for motivation, and normally taking home a paycheck should be one of those, but through my added level of thought (understanding), I tend to cancel that, or 'sabotage' it, as some may say... but once one spreads their net of awareness about what effect they have on others around them in an even wider area, there's no going back. 

So, even though today my survival-experience has given me abilities far above that any education could provide, I find myself unable to be 'taken seriously' because of my 'not jumping through the same hoops, the same way, as everyone'... and I say that because I even thought to seek refuge in supposedly-high-minded, rational academia (where I initially felt very fearful and small), but that presupposition turned out to be illusion, too.

So, at present I'm in a very, very, very reward-less world. Not only that, but I'm also blocked from exiting that dilemma by... 'powers' beyond my control (a single person taking advantage of their legal status (and mine being dependant on theirs) to make me pay their work-less, ignorant (expensive!) space-filling ways). I was already in a depression before this new supposedly 'new start' apartment (and my ex-drug-pusher-more-than-anything-psychiatrist thought that I've always been depressed; I'm supposedly unable to even process 'reward' (meaning that I have no experience with it), meaning that the drugs they prescribed would never work, either (they didn't), yet they continued to prescribe them (€192 every two weeks, on average)... this makes no rational sense, but I digress).

I used to depend on alcohol to 'boot' me out of a depressive state, or to make me numb enough to ignore those reward-killing 'details', but even that stopped working once I found a better understanding of what it does to the brain (and that I learned while doing research about why the antidepressants were fucking me up so much) and saw it for the 'fake reward' it is. And there, too, there's no going back (side note: so why do alcoholism 'support' programs never include the critical thought (lessons) required to overcome/re-program our 'default' reactions and instincts?). All the same, I would sometimes resort to my 'knock out remedy' when the depressive bout was particularily bad, but even that stopped working to the point where drinking itself seemed... a sad and pointless exercise. I can drink socially again, but I can't really say that I like it anymore... in any case, it's not what it was before. I feel about alcohol today as I always felt about weed before: one (rational) part of my brain being concerned about another part not functioning 'correctly'... not a positive experience, and it's like watching myself twice (in everything I think and say while 'influenced'), in a way.

So, today I have neither alcohol or antidepressants to 'help me though' depression, and my understanding of my state seems to be just another obstacle; ignorance could be bliss, but only in an ignorance-exploiting world (like today's). My only remedy is to make my own rewards, and that solution seems, for me, to cut myself off from the world entirely, and do some sort of humanities-service task that will remain in human memory. I would also like to develop my AI research (and I think I'm on to something there, but convincing someone to finance non-tech-educated me, good luck) and RDF development (my at-once utterly simple and horribly complex 'fact engine'), but I just can't support myself that way.

At this point I find solace in working with both my mind and my hands (and this apartment was that at one point - I did get a new kitchen-countertop technique invention out of it), but what I really need is to invest myself into something that I've evidently not yet had in my life: something for me.

Critical thought (or not): Autonomous-thought survival in a 'survive-through-imitation' world.

There's really something to say about the Dunning-Kruger effect: I'm constantly fighting to overcome it, and because of it, I'm not even sure how successful I am to that end. I keep going on about the importance of critical thought, but because of the above, I don't think I'm even very particularly good at it: those notions of self-doubt ground into me through my entire childhood plague still my every thought process (albeit, today, to a lesser degree), and that probably causes me to miss options and certainly to doubt outcomes (second-checking), and that lengthens what should be a 'normal' thought process enormously. Re-routing around early-life indoctrination ('programming') is a long process and takes sometimes decades of work.

And I got into it in the worst possible way: something happened to me in early life that 'flipped the switch' for autonomous thought... but I only can speak for my own mind, so perhaps this happens to everyone, and it eventually gets ground out of them. Anyhow, it seemed early on in life essential to my (subconscious idea of) survival that I understand everything happening around me; if something (I was told to do/imitate) didn't make any sense, I simply couldn't do it. What made things even more confusing was the obvious evidence (that no-one seemed able to see) that the 'ideal' goal of 'simply obeying' was a stressful, unsatisfactory, unhappy, and unfulfilled life. And the goals everyone was striving to 'fulfil' were almost never their own.

And when presented with an 'example' to follow, I soon found that the very act of questioning was enough to destroy, interrupt, 'poison' what was supposed to be a 'normal' social process. Yet not only did I not understand this, I had no answer for it (once one knows enough to question, how can one not question (especially things obviously questionable)?). That was a divide that I was never able to overcome, and one I only recently began to understand.

The root of that difference is in the 'survival' I mentioned earlier. It sounds strange and almost cliché said like that, but that is actually how our subconscious works: every decision we make is rooted in, and depends upon, that survival instinct.

And there is a 'switch'. How does one 'survive'? Whether we are familiar with our environment or not, we have the options of a) learning about everything that environment contains, and making our own decisions about what's good and bad in it, or, b), should we observe others already 'surviving' in that environment, imitating them (based on their overall healthiness and happiness).

But again, to one that has always taken the second option, the first option does not even exist... or, at least, it would most likely not come to their mind as a choice of action.

And therein lies the divide. To one that relies on imitating others for survival, any deviation from the (group) 'survival model' is 'different', and this can even mean 'danger'. So questioning the survival model is, in itself, already enough for a survive-through-imitation-er (have to think up a term for this) to 'out-group' anyone doing it... and once out-grouped, a person so deemed will probably always be mistrusted at a deepest level... unless of course they make some display of total submission. And this 'same or not' pattern-matching comparison (that the non-critical-thinker seems condemned to), too, is a 'switch'.

So how is one to negotiate with one who knows (or cares) not to reason, but only to imitate?

The thing with people able to make their own value judgments (think critically) is that they're persuaded that everyone else can think critically, too. Yet to find the answer to the above question, they have only to think back to the time (probably their childhood) when they couldn't think critically, or were still new it... and this is a hard thing for some to do.

Convincing someone who survives through imitation to deviate from their 'chosen' (often 'programmed' by others) behaviour pattern is almost an exercise in manipulation: either we have to convince them that an option 'outside' their comfort zone (programming) was a) their idea, or that b) everyone else in their 'in-group' has already opted for it (making it look like they are 'behind' or 'different', and this would make them even eager to adopt the new model (to conform)). And if one needs evidence of this and evidence that some, if not many, are already aware of it, one has only to look at almost any and all advertising.

Even more maddening, since the survive-through-imitator can/will not judge the value of anything for themselves, is the fact that they will continue to refuse to change their minds even when buried in evidence; when one knows not to judge the value of something, how can the value of that evidence be determined? In short, it can't (and all that is left/that 'registers' is the 'default' comparison (to an existing survival programming/model)).

Ridicule doesn't work, either, unless their 'in group' somehow joins in against the targeted... but, again, any critical thinker with any moral values would hesitate to resort to that sort of manipulation.

(side note: therein lies a point of irony in, the sheer disingenuousity of those who deem themselves 'masters (programmers) of morals': if one doesn't measure the value of anything, no moral judgements are even possible, making those 'moral lessons', to those who lack the will/ability to understand them for themselves, nothing but dictate to imitate (or else!), so it's hard to believe the gall of those who call that sort of dictate-serving carrot-and-stick (or else!) manipulation 'morals'?).

And what to do in face of this sort of divide? There is a frustration to both sides of it: the survive-through-imitation-er feels frustration in not being able to get the critical thinker to simply conform (and, subconsciously, sees the same's behaviour as even a danger (to survival)), and the critical thinker feels frustration at the former's inability and unwillingness to reason, and apparent dishonesty.

And when communication doesn't work to overcome this divide, what remains? Yes: violence. Overcoming/squashing this (primal!) urge depends upon the duress of the situation and/or the education/programming of both parties, but the critical thinker has the distinct advantage of being able to rein in their emotional responses, whereas the non-critical-thinker has only their fear (strength comparison, strength in numbers, 'thou shalt not' (or else!) programming, etc.) to hold them back.

If that's not enough, even the concept of honesty seems lost on one with no value judgement abilities of their own: if the only means of determining value is comparison, then, in any given situation, only the options comparable (beneficial) to the survival model will be considered (and everything else, especially things countering or questioning the same, rejected). To the critical thinker, who quite often is used to assessing the maximum available elements in any situation before making a decision, this looks like 'cherrypicking' to the extreme, but they have to understand that, to the non-critical-thinker, the concept of 'cherrypicking' can't even exist.

So, to 'work' with a non-critical-thinker, only is it necessary for critical thinkers to mask their thought processes (which would (subconsciously, even) trigger an alarm in their interlocuteur), it is necessary to avoid all attempts at reason and ridicule. But since the critical thinker will almost certainly fail at one or all of these challenges, and will certainly become 'out-grouped', the only means remaining is a long, arduous, one-on-one building of trust (acceptance as a 'reliable survival model') before even lessons of (how to) reason can even begin to set in.

Oh, the genius of the immoral those who set up the world this way: once set into motion, the survive-through-imitation machine perpetuates, almost immutably, itself, and its masters (the shepherds) have only to program the in-group survival-model 'leaders' (sheep-dogs) to propagate change through the rest of the imitation-or-else society (sheep).

That has been the model almost since humanity began to gather in greater numbers; it has worked thus far because our inability to communicate over long distances has contained 'packages' of humans into managable, isolated 'in-groups'. Yet it is becomong increasingly hard to maintain these, and it will soon become necessary to cut a dictate-able (survive-through-imitation) group from any other (competing group) influence entirely... and it's hard to imagine that those who would opt for this could ever become a world majority (at least, in the near future).

So, how does a critical thinker survive in a non-critically-thinking world (if they are not already an immoral part of the sheep-dependant 'shepherd' clan)?

Find your own autonomous as-away-from-public-as-possible means of survival, keep your cool, and have patience.

RDF (the 'Semantic Web') and the Human Brain

I was introduced to the RDF (Resource Description Framework) data model by the chairpeople  (waving to Paul Rouet ; ) of the "Paris Time Machine" project; they were sorely in need of a 'tech guy' (and I was the only one on the 'team'), but it was the only computer-oriented thing on their 'cahier des charges' that I wasn't qualified for; not only had I no experience with RDF, but I was totally unaware of its existence until then. I'm wondering how I managed to miss it: it's been around since 1999, created almost in tandem with the XML format (that is only beginning to seem 'more value than noise' for me), but it never took off, and is still far from anything approaching a standard (use) today. Now that I've looked into it, its potential utility is, well, amazing, but it's going to require a lot of work to implement: either the whole of the web is going to have to be re-factored to accommodate it, or we're going to have to develop an AI that can reliably read and extract data from all forms of publication (print and web). I'm working towards, and vying for, the latter.

RDF at its base is not a complicated affair, and its syntax took only a couple days to master. Basically, each bit of data is a 'subject-predicate-object' "triplet", for example: "Bob=><-->last_name=>Smith', or "Bob=>address=>25 maple lane' or "Bob=>phone_number=>0 (145) 628-5400'. So if we were to do a search for (subject) 'Bob', we would get all the data 'attributed' to that subject: last_name, address, phone_number. Of course, in larger data collections, 'Bob' would be a bad 'central node/identifier' choice (because that what it becomes in this context), but I'm sure you get the picture: in this way, it would be possible to attribute any 'type' (dictated by the predicate) of information to that subject, without any limitation and possibility of conflict (Bob can have two phone numbers: both will have a 'Bob=>phone_number' subject-predicate, and a query for 'Bob=>phone_number' (or just 'Bob') will return both). Furthermore, one triplet's object (data) can be a subject with data of its own: for example: "0 (145) 628-5400=>phone_number_type=>land_line' would turn up as a 'second level' of data in an 'all about Bob' simple 'Bob' query. So with this method, data linked to data linked to data... the possibilities are endless.

But that's not what excited me about it: I've always been fascinated by neuroscience (basically: understanding my own (brain's) quirks), and as I learned more about RDF, my thoughts, with bells ringing, returned increasingly there: there are a lot of similarities between the workings of RDF and the human brain.

Granted, RDF is a step 'above' our 'fired-or-not' basically-binary synapses, but the organisation seems the same. If we were to think of 'Bob', our brain would return all the data it contained that could be attributed to that entity. Our brain 'identifies' "Bob" by a group of synapses ('identifier'), and that is where I thought the difference with RDF was, but if we were to examine a more complicated RDF dataset,  easily-conflict-prone subjects such as 'Bob' would have to become unique identifiers as well (and 'that particular Bob's' first name would become, say:10001010=>first_name=>Bob (and 10001010<-->=>address=>25 maple lane, etc.). In reality, to avoid conflicts, most likely every 'thing' in existence should have a unique identifier (save, for example, our most fundamental elements (atom-types, fermion-types, etc.)... so if we reductio ad absurdam our computer's 'unique id', it will be a collection of 'on or off' binary values... the same as our brain's.

====

Just a footnote here to underline that this 'binary cocktail' outline most likely does not describe the entirety of the brain's thought-memory-recall process; probably other chemical 'filters' figure in there too (and this is how we give 'value' to retrieved memories (over others)). This is yet something else to explore (and perhaps even exploit, if it can be re-created technologically), but for the purposes of this what-is-supposed-to-be RDF perusal, going there would be but a distraction.

There are no Gluons, Bosons, Gravitons, Weak or Strong Force... or 'magnetism', while we're at it.

...Not as individual 'things', anyway. All of these are the effects of the energy-gravity battle between particles at different energy levels... the varying degree and state of every particle (super-gamma split, sub-gamma photon, polarised-bound (quark) or unpolarised (lepton) make for the different 'effects'.

Magnetism is simply 'synchronised gravity'... of atoms whose outermost electrons are in that 'sweet spot' that is just to the inside of the overall atom 'event horizon': while being retained by the atom itself, that outermost electron(s) can 'broadcast' its gravitational signature while being affected by other similar atoms; the gravitational effects of electrons deeper within an atom's sphere of influence tend to be 'stifled' (negated) by the atom itself.

The centre of both gravity and magnetism (and this is no coincidence), 'negative squared' rules everything. Weak and strong forces are simply the 'proximity factor' of two particles, or the difference between two (bound) particles and another.

Of Sheep Dogs, Shepherds and Sheep

I've expressed in past posts my persuasion that it is critical thought abilities that divide humanity, but since then I've tried to refine and revise that somewhat, and attempt to apply it to the social workings of modern society. Definition of terms: by 'modern', I mean 'now'.

Through that I came up with the title's three behaviour patterns: critical thinking (or absence of the same) does indeed create two distinct behaviour-thought patterns, but attempting to achieve 'survival success' with these in modern society creates behaviour subdivisions.

One who thinks critically can seek 'autonomous success' (perhaps in mutual exchanges with other like-minded humans), or they can choose to use their critical-thought abilities as an advantage over non-critical thinkers (without any attempt to educate them): it is this latter type, the one I call 'the shepherd', that I'd like to talk about here.

Then we have the non-critical-thinkers ('survive-through-imitation-ers'): I used to (rather pejoratively) refer to them as 'the sheep', but that would mean that anyone in a 'management' position would be a critical thinker; this is hardly the case. It would also require that every indoctrinating religious leader be aware that what they are spreading is bunk, but this is hardly true, as many are genuine 'believers'.

This latter case puzzled me until realising that there is a fine line, almost a behaviour 'switch', between those who seek to imitate a survival model and those who enforce it. All that changes there is a reference to, and exercise, of authority, but the 'survive through imitation' behaviour remains the same. Thus the 'sheep dog' ('survival-model authority') and 'sheep' ('survival-model-imitator') classifications.

So, if the sheep depend on the sheep dogs (and 'in-group' comparison) for their survival model, where do the sheep-dogs get theirs from? The shepherds, of course.

The genius of this system is that, to 'enact' a behaviour change, all the (often behind-the-scenes) shepherds have to do is give orders to their sheep-dogs (with a healthy share of scraps as 'reward'), and they will introduce that to whatever in-group behaviour pattern of whatever in-group they lead... not only will the sheep dogs 'police' that behaviour, but the sheep will police themselves; in the surive-by-imitation thought-behaviour mindset, imitation is the only known survival method, and everything outside of it is a 'threat' (to be 'defended against' through various levels of denial/dismissal/ostracisation/violence), and simple observation shows that this is how many people behave today.

The religious example led me to that realisation, but the pattern extends well beyond it: in your local supermarket, for example, consumers may think they have the 'freedom' to choose whatever product they like, but few think to why those products are there (and not others) and to who decides this 'for' them: the store manager stocks the shelves, but they take the choice of products from (often central) management, and when it comes to chain stores, this is pretty high up in the hierarchy.

In this pattern I've observed that the shepherds will often put forward a 'believer' sheep-dog as a 'patsy-authority' while they themselves remain anonymous: we see this both in politics (many of the presidents of the United States since Eisenhower have been this (and the present one is an uncontrollable, failed attempt at this)) and religion (it's the cardinals that pull the strings, not the Pope). But yet other shepherds don't 'require' this as an accountability-deflecting distraction, and content themselves with controlling what products appear on the shelves: the Koch brothers and Exxon mobil (we've had the technology for electric highways and electric most everything since the 1970s, for goodness' sake) are good examples of this.

And this behaviour pattern is echoed in modern class-divisions and our economy: the top 1% are people we rarely see in public, and the more-visible shepherd-connected 'rewarded sheep-dog' levels fill the tiers below that; as this system saps the lower levels, there is a sharp drop-off (at the former 'middle class') when we get to the 'sheep'.

And in this system, autonomous thinkers who don't seek to exploit their advantage have difficulty fitting in: we have seen rare examples of honest, autonomous success (such as Tesla and Elon Musk), but many, to survive, must rely on shepherds (grants, research financing) for their existence, making them almost... well rewarded slaves (anything they produce will earn their 'benefactors' much more than they will ever see), condemned to all the social ills that being an 'out-group' entails, because, in a survive-by-imitation society, even though those 'not-sheep or sheep-dogs' do the demonstrable, overly-obvious 'right' of producing all the comforts sheep enjoy, since they don't 'behave the same way', the sheep will always (instinctively) think them 'wrong' in some way... that they themselves can't even describe.

A facebook suite to my last post (energy + gravity = 'light' (thus mass))

First off, quantum physics isn't as hard as most make out: there's a few base movements and interactions and the 'complicated part' is the math (expressing and predicting that interaction)... and that's partly due to the inefficiency of our 'traditional' base-ten number system.

Anyhow, a lot of present 'knowledge' (a lot of which has never been demonstrated) is based on hypothesis dating back to the early 19th century: the most cited of these is Maxwell's equations, themselves based on earlier observations of 'electromagnetic activity'.

Then and since then, they've taken the observed atomic (electron) behaviour and used it as a description of the actual content of an electromagnetic particle. I question this.

Because all that is based on observations of the behaviour of a -few- atom-types whose electrons occupy a 'sweet spot' that nears the 'event horizon' of its host atom's repelling force with other atoms (a sum of its parts' total 'mass' and charge), meaning that two 'sweet spot' atoms can in fact come 'closer' than other atoms whose outer electrons are further away from any neigbouring electron, meaning that they cannot affect each other's inner workings (but more about that later).

All of these 'sweet spot' atoms, because of their 'almost touching' outer electrons, easily transfer energy (heat) between them, and in some cases their outer electrons are held so weakly that a neighbouring unbalanced-charge atom will 'leech' them away... this is the base behaviour of electricity.

But those 'sweet spot' atoms whose electrons are near enough to their 'event horizon' to be affected by neighbouring atoms, but not close enough to it to be 'leeched', can be -synchronised- by a field of constant polarity... and this (imho) is the base behaviour of 'magnetism'.

Because if we add gravity (instead of 'magnetism') to the 'base elementary particle', what we have in the latter case is -synchronised gravity- (fulfilling 'magnetic behaviour').

Because if we observe gravity, we see that it becomes exponentially stronger towards its point of origin; in the above atoms whose atoms are 'almost touching', even though the actual 'size' of the electron may be small, the gravity must be great at that proximity (as would the energy it is retaining).

And gravity seems to extend to 'infinity' from that point of origin, but already at a short distance away it is next to 'nil'... but acumulate points of origin, and the combined 'pull' will add up, and if that 'pull' is synchronised (all electrons 'pointing in the same direction at the same time'), even more so, perhaps even exponentially (combined 'wavelengths'... observable even in ocean waves).

So if we have a point of origin, an energy, and an exponentially-stronger-towards-point-of-origin force that is that energy trying to get 'back' to it (gravity), in order to resist this force, the energy would have to be exponentially stronger/weaker with distance too: yet even stable, that energy is -there- orbiting the point of origin, and it's that constant gravity-energy 'difference' that is the origin of the constant 'c'.

The rest is 'consequential behaviour'... 'light' is a low-energy 'complete' particle that is 'chasing' its energy excess, with an oscillating 'polarity', in the direction it was thrown in: super-gamma-energy particle energy has (somehow) 'split' between polarities (as described in fermion pair (creation/annihilation)) that pull at -each other- with a force beyond gravity, stopping their forward motion.

That would make mass (in the classical sense) 'mismatched particle pairs', and I've already written about that extensively elsewhere.

In any case, the 'gravity vs. energy' model ties everything together, or 'clicks'.




But please, shoot me down.