You are on page 1of 100

Dedication: to Yui and Arthur.

Socrates was, still is, and always will be my mentor. He was
forced to kill himself by drinking an arsenic potion because he
taught his students to question authority. But he taught them
more than this: he taught them to question everything. Much
of science was developed with induction: the derivation of
general rules from examples. Deduction, however, is the
method of deriving conclusions from a set of suppositions
using logical rules. This is the standard technique in
mathematics. There's also proof by contradiction which some
“math purists” will not accept. It's also standard in math. Godel
developed his supremely important Incompleteness Theorem
using ___ (please research and fill in the blank yourself).
Typically, a deduction is arrived at by working backwards. It's
a technique seldom taught in schools – just as math is seldom
taught with inspiration. The motivation for a proof is the
inspiration for a particular method – such as when to use the
epsilon-delta approach in advanced calculus. If there's only one
thing you get from this book, I hope it's this: cherish your
education; what you truly learn is more important than any
grade. Some educators think there's an “expiration date” on
your education; never think this. It's a demoralizing and
useless thought. That idea was created out of fear – the fear of
lack of students to keep the business of universities going. But
there's no need to “give in” to this fear; there will always be
students in a society that values education. True education is
the imparting of enduring principles and ideas such as the
Socratic method – the Socratic method will never die because
there will always be a need for it – just as there will always be
a need for induction, deduction, and the systems approach. And
yes, the systems approach is just as important as induction,
deduction, and the Socratic method.
p03, 1. The Four Perspectives of the Systems-Reliability
p08, 2. Subdivide Versus Holistic
p11, 3. What Goes Around Comes Around
p14, 4. The Ends Cannot Justify the Means
p16, 5. Distributed Versus Centralized Infrastructure
p18, 6. Explicit Tolerance
p22, 7. The Purpose of Education
p26, 8. Three Technologies That Can Save the World
p30, 9. Two Types of Companies
p32, 10. The Two Fundamental Values of Civilization
p36, 11. Example Design: A Human Supporting Ecosystem
p38, 12. Are We Alone?
p53, 13. GP@home
p59, 14. Physics
p67, 15. Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
p69, 16. The Importance of Love and Family
p70, 17. The Discipline of Prayer
p73, 18. Three Distributed Computing Projects
p75, 19. The Year 2012
p78, 20. Holistic Gardening
p80, 21. The Holistic Home
p83, 22. Utopia-Town
p86, Addendum 1: Old Chapter on Physics
p91, Addendum 2: A Second Paper on Physics
p96, Addendum 3: A Third Paper on Physics

1. The Four Perspectives of the Systems-Reliability Approach


What's inside the system, what's outside the system, and

what're the major components of the system? In answering
these questions, we address the system notion of boundary.
Let’s examine the human system. What's inside the human
system? Human beings, social organization (formal and
informal), and our infrastructure – are major sub-systems.
What are inputs? Those are energy, resources, ecologies that
impact our lives, and natural (non-living) systems that impact
our lives. What things “flow” between major sub-systems?
Those things are: resources, energy, information, feelings (can
be thought of as commodities that are exchanged), “control
signals”, and disinformation. What are outputs of the human
system? Those are wastes, heat, information, culture (both
constructive and destructive aspects), and things that affect
non-living systems and ecologies.

Aside: what's war in systems terms? War is the allocation of

resources, energy, information, feelings (such as aggression),
control signals, and disinformation – all directed at one goal:
domination. The “rational” idea behind war (as hoped by
governments waging war) is that long-term gains should
outweigh any short-term malady. Please refer to the chapter
below entitled: The Ends Cannot Justify the Means.

So, the system notion of boundary is the view that identifies the
system concerned: what is inside and out, what are major
components, what flows between, and what flows in and out.


There are three major aspects of the system notion of scope:

feasibility, customer requirements, and design responsibilities.
Tied together in question form: can you design a workable
system that satisfies customer and design requirements within
budget? As applied to the human system: can we re-design a
workable human system (as defined above) that satisfies
humanity and our design constraints within our allocated
budget (assume for the moment we have a design budget and
authority to re-allocate system resources to satisfy design
requirements)? This is an extremely difficult question when
dealing with complex systems. Frequently, the entire process of
“system design”: identify boundary, scope, maintenance
concerns, and reliability – must be repeated several times –
“filling out” details of sub-systems and flows, inputs and
outputs, re-answering the question associated with scope (with
every major change in system design, there is an associated
change in the question of scope), and the concerns below.


Expect to pay at least the same amount for maintenance – as

for “the original system”. In this case, the “end users” are
human beings themselves. If we can design and implement a
human system that satisfies (I would substitute the word fulfills
here) the vast majority of human beings, if we can maximize
quality-of-life while minimizing suffering, and at the same time
– not create a welfare state, we would have accomplished
something truly fundamental. Maintenance is the “upkeep” for
the designed system – to satisfy end-user requirements.
Frequently, the designed system does not take into account
many of those (it’s too expensive and difficult to satisfy every
end-user need) – and – it's difficult and sometimes impossible
to anticipate changes in end-user requirements. So, it’s a trade-
off: the more we spend on creating a “maintenance-free”
product, the less we are likely to spend on maintenance –
provided we have the foresight to anticipate the true needs of
end-users. There's risk involved – which brings up the next


What is the risk/probability of failure of a major sub-system?

What is the cost of that particular failure? Multiply the two and
you get a simplistic projection of the relative cost. Let’s
consider a “simple” example: a telecommunication switch (the
device used to route local calls). The risk of total failure (where
the switch “goes down” – it cannot route any new calls and all
calls-in-progress are dropped) – is quite low: perhaps once in
ten years. The cost of that failure can be quite high – depending
on the local customer base and duration. Even considering
averages, the cost can rise into the millions. So, let’s say the
switch is down for three hours and costs the local telephone
company two million in lost revenue and bad publicity. Just
three hours in ten years. If you divide down-time by up-time
(over ten years) then multiply by two million, you get around
$70 which equates to about three hours of technician-time. So,
we're justified if we allocate three technician-hours for switch
maintenance (over ten years) to specifically avoid this kind of
problem. Actually, telephone companies allocate much more
than this to avoid total switch failure.

Let’s move the discussion toward the human system.

Catastrophic failure would be where every single human being
would die. Admittedly, the probability of that is extremely low.
Extremely low but non-zero. Some would say the cost of that
event would be “infinity”. A number (no matter how low) times
infinity is still infinity. So, the relative cost is still “just too
high”. So, anything we spend on preventing that event – is
money well spent.

A dynamical system is one in which past inputs affect present

outputs or system state. Reliability usually refers to the domain
of systems concerns – which reflect upon system stability.
Stability refers to the behavior of system state over time. Is it
restricted? Or does vary madly – threatening to destroy the
system itself? (Reliability also refers to dependability or
consistency of good system performance. If a car does not start,
has repeated mechanical breakdowns, or exhibits
uncontrollable vibrations while driving – we say it is

..In systems theory, much emphasis is put on controllability and

observability – which are pretty much – exactly what they
“say”: a system is controllable if there are finite inputs which
“drive” (or push) system state to desired specifications – and –
a system is observable if there is a set of measurable outputs
which represent the state of the system. State variables are
those which represent system structure. When we are designing
a system “from scratch”, these are all known and explicit.
When we are trying to understand a natural system “from the
outside”, we have to make reasonable guesses about state,
inputs, outputs, and attempt to determine if the system is
observable and controllable..

In systems analysis, there are stable systems and there are

unstable systems. A famous image of wind shear causing
increasing oscillations, in this case twists, is recalled by many
of the public. The flexible bridge here is “the system” and the
constant wind shear – the input. The system under the force of

gravity (only) is stable. The system under gravity and wind
shear – unstable.

There are many analogous stresses/inputs on the human

system. Hunger can be thought of – as a kind of stress.
Overpopulation causes hunger which is a stress on the human
system. Disease vectors cause stress on the human system.
Changing weather patterns cause stress on the human system.
Disruption of food supply chains causes stress on the human
system. Lowering the quality of education causes stress on the
human system.

The point of this chapter is to introduce systems concepts,

apply them cursorily to the human system, and provide a
launching point for other ideas below.

2. Subdivide Versus Holistic

It is typically Western to use reduction to solve problems: break

a problem into parts, solve the parts, which solves the larger
problem, right? Medical surgery is a good example: cut the
problem out - “fix” it! Does it really solve the problem? Or
merely treat one symptom of an underlying (typically unseen
systemic) issue?

For small isolated problems, reduction works brilliantly – look

at the success of the West. Our civilization is the most brilliant
in history. Truly, it is not so much a testament of capitalism as
it is a testament of reduction. Our great engineering endeavors:
dams, bridges, and other structures are examples of beauty in
functionality (and apparent simplicity). These structures are
both grand and elegant. But when they fail, it's because of a
lack of full use of the systems approach – such as with the two
Space Shuttle disasters.

When they attempted to find the “root cause” of those failures,

it was again – using reduction. They pieced together the
(available) shuttle much like a forensic scientist would try to
piece together a body or murder scene. And this technique
worked – just barely.

Why have there been so many delays with CERN - “the world's
largest particle accelerator”? Precisely because they have been
forced to use the systems approach to solve major/catastrophic
problems before they emerge. So many nations have
contributed money and time to the project – that a catastrophic
failure would be “major sin”.

Holism, the holistic approach, is fairly alien to Westerners. The

systems approach is essentially holism and Westerners have
been applying it for about one century - but Easterners have
been “doing” it for literally millennia. For instance, in Thai
society, people see each other naturally as interdependent. It is
the “natural way of things” as they see it. It is most
emphatically not communism. It is a culturally based social
interdependence. A favor is returned not out of guilt or
(negative) obligation – but social balance, (positive) duty, and
self-esteem. Parents take care of children and children take care
of parents. It is why homelessness and patricide are relatively
unheard of in Thailand. Of course, it is not paradise (or utopia)
.. But, commitment to the extended family is stronger / more
important there.

Some things cannot be understood taken apart. Some things are

destroyed by taking them apart. Sometimes, there is a synergy
between elements that is destroyed by separating the elements.
What is a human being? Is it merely an assembly of heart,
lungs, liver, kidneys, brain, skin and other organs? If you “take
a person apart” (disassemble a person), does that not destroy
the person? Even if we could preserve each organ perfectly
(and had some perfect method for reestablishing connective
tissue), would anyone volunteer for such an ordeal? I doubt it.
Most of us believe in “the soul” which could correspond to that
synergy mentioned above. Another candidate could be “the
mind”. Whatever it is, we believe there's something “extra”
about our bodies that is greater than “the sum of the parts” –
take one apart – and it disappears.

But I am not one who mystifies or deifies the human being. I

believe one day – we will fully understand the human being
from a genetic and biochemical standpoint. Until then, we must
use the systems approach – as an attempt to comprehend things
– better than simple decomposition/reduction.

The two primary factors that determine whether you have to
use the systems approach – or are allowed to use standard
reduction – are complexity and subsystem interdependence.
Computer science provides a measure of complexity – from the
programming / software engineering standpoint. But we need
something more general. And the level of subsystem
interdependence can only be determined by a partial systems
analysis. So complexity needs to be precisely defined and some
preliminary systems analysis needs to be performed – in order
to determine whether we can “get away” with standard
reduction – or need to employ the systems-reliability approach.

Complexity, for our purposes, is defined as the property of a

system with the following features: a generous frequency of
distinct types of components, a non-trivial arrangement of
those components – in order for the system to function
nominally, and some quantitative evidence of a system-wide

I have made an argument for the case that the “human animal”
is complex. It should be obvious that human society is also
complex deserving of systems analysis. Anything less would be
cheating us.

3. What Goes Around Comes Around

There are two aspects of the Golden Rule; there are two sides
of The Coin. Give what you want. Don't give what you don't
want. That's as simple as it can be stated. But it's not detailed
enough for true understanding.

Treat others how you want to be treated. Don't treat them –

how you don't want to be treated. This and the following
chapter, for me, replace the ten commandments or any other
morality structure. I don't “need” the ten commandments or
Qu'ran. Those Two Rules are enough for me.

Some people liken “what goes around comes around” to karma.

I pray to God this universe is Just. I don't flatter myself with
the label “good” but .. It would be a travesty if our universe
were not just. If everything is relative, if there is no such thing
as “good” or “bad”, then anything goes and there is no reason
to “hold back” (just do what you want without regard to
others). “My universe” (the model of our universe – in my
mind) does not require a God – but it requires justice. Justice
with a capital “J” means the archetype of justice – the ultimate
justice. So there are (the concepts of) Truth, Respect, and Trust.
My universe does not require the archetypes to be real – but it
would be Nice if they were. ;)

..I've had several arguments with several friends (and family)

about prime values and the existence of Truth. We cannot prove
an objective reality exists “outside” our perceptions, but we can
make compelling arguments. So we cannot prove the existence
of Truth, but I think again – we can make compelling
arguments. Philosophers throughout the ages have “wasted” a
lot of time considering whether or not we even exist. It's almost
like trying to explain why a transverse electromagnetic wave (a
photon) has oscillating electric and magnetic fields. Most
people take it for granted. But some of us would like to
understand. Are we figments in God's imagination? Can we
ever know Truth? I think the power of our visualizations is
tremendous. We can visualize many explanations of our
observations of reality – much like many runs of a simulation.
If we can train our intuition to mimic reality, we can “run
through” these “simulations” - much like a supercomputer
might. Our brains have incredible potential – for synthetic
thought. Combine that with our power of visualization and you
have a “device” which rivals (or in many cases outperforms) a
supercomputer. I've had some successes at “imagining” (using
the word in a special way to mean that discussed above)
photons, elementary particles, and nuclear structure. I've run
computer simulations of these imaginings and found some
interesting parallels. No physicist would accept them as
“proof”, so I've not tried to distribute them. But if I can have
some successes at visualizing particle interactions, then there's
no limit to applying visualization elsewhere. So I contend we
can Know Truth if we relentlessly pursue it. If there is a God,
surely It is infinite in many ways: perspective, understanding,
and compassion. To look at something from “many angles” is
an attempt to have a God-like perspective. Let's try it; it's a
worthy goal..

One of my frequent prayers goes like this: Dear God, please

protect and cherish the innocent. Please give me the power to
protect the innocent in my life.

One of the central questions of my young life was: does

humanity deserve to survive? In the end, I think it is an open
question – I think it is debatable. But for sure, I Know, the
innocent of this world deserve protection, to survive, and to
Thrive. I do not claim “virginal” (the kind you're born with)
innocence – that was destroyed in a horrific incident in my life
– that I cannot talk about. But I write this book for the innocent
of the world – please do not give up – please do not lose hope.

4. The Ends Cannot Justify the Means

Is your wife's/girlfriend's life worth more than anything to you?

Would you sacrifice the world for her? As a teenager, I was
presented with these questions (by a fundamentalist Christian
group). I think the “ultimate sacrifice” for Christians should not
be “laying down your life” for someone – it should be – living
each day fully with and for that person. If you feel resentful
doing it, you're with the wrong person.

Back to “sacrifice the world”. It should be clear what I'm

driving at here. True love can endure all things. But no life is
more precious than another. You can lay down your life for
your wife, but she is not worth another – you don't have the
right to choose that. Even in some hypothetical scenario –
where “the devil” gave you the choice – save the world or save
your wife – you cannot choose to save your wife over the
world – you don't have the right.

Imagine another scenario: two countries are a war. The god of

one country appears to its leader and says “Sacrifice your
innocent daughter to me, spill her blood in my name, and I
shall make peace between you”. If the king does as his god
asks, he will lose his precious daughter. If the king does not,
many more of his country-folk will die. Does the king have a
choice? I think he does. If I were king, I would proclaim my
daughter queen and personally venture to the other kingdom to
offer peace – some viable compromise – essentially saying
“fuck you” to the “god”. If I died in the process, so be it – my
daughter's life and the hope of peace – are worth it.

What I'm driving at in this chapter is this: no matter how noble

“the ends” (the objectives) – they do not justify any

wrongdoing. Noble goals require noble efforts. No goal should
employ an ignoble effort.

5. Distributed Versus Centralized Infrastructure

Too much of the world employs centralized infrastructure. This

is a precarious position considering catastrophic failure of each
subsystem. Our waste treatment, water supply, electricity
supply, and food supply subsystems are horrifically antiquated
in terms of recycling and decentralization. Each subsystem can
be “dealt with” locally – ideally, at home.

Imagine the resource savings if we used composting toilets

instead of centralized waste treatment. Coupled with intensive
symbiotic horticulture, much of our foodstuffs could be grown
and prepared at home. The sewage lines and treatment plants
would not need to be constructed in the first place.

So, imagine an intensive garden equivalent to a half-acre plot

of land growing vegetables and fruits in symbiotic
companionship with each other. Once established, this garden
could be tended by one person easily in their “spare time” - the
same person who benefits from the garden. Of course, a home
houses a family and each member could take turns tending a
larger garden which feeds the entire family – the bulk of their
nutritional needs.

The reason I emphasize waste treatment is because too much

waste is wasted. ;)

At this point in the history of recycling, anyone who has seen a

working television or been online should be aware of the
concept and the desperate situation of the earth and its
inhabitants. I'm not going to waste our time debating it;
everyone reading this book should be inclined to recycle. The
purpose of this chapter is to stimulate new home buyers (or
second home buyers) to “go green”.
It might be somewhat more expensive to install solar panels
and construct conservatively, but everyone should be aware of
the longterm “earth savings” and family savings. If you
insulate, if you use materials that reflect heat instead of absorb
(in the tropics or semi-tropics), if you attempt to utilize “local
energy” (solar panels), then your house can be cooled to
comfort much less expensively. There are attempts to construct
“zero energy” (zero net energy consumption) and “zero
emission” (zero green-house-gas emission) homes. If you are
buying or building a home, please consider “going green” – if
only partially: install one composting toilet, use the product to
fertilize a small garden, and show your family what can be
done. :)

Later, after some practice, we can learn how to construct green

office buildings. Perhaps the product of those buildings can be
used in nearby farms and vice versa. Finally, perhaps industry
can create greener manufacturing plants – those that consume
more recycled goods and produce more recyclable “wastes”.

6. Explicit Tolerance

We need to do more than lip-service to the idea of tolerance.

We need to promote and encourage cultural diversity. Imagine
a homogeneous earth where all people dress, eat, speak, and
think similarly. I can't imagine a more boring hell. And I'm
convinced that cultural and individual diversity increase the
survivability of the human race.

An organism fits a particular niche in the environment via what

it consumes, excretes, and characteristics/traits of the organism.
A seal can escape a shark by running onto land so land-
mobility has distinct advantages for it. A hungry shark can be
seen chasing an animal right to the beach so fortunately (for
creatures like man) there are limits to its foraging range.
Another water creature with limited land-mobility is the
catfish. I had the “joy” of stepping on one inadvertently as a
boy. It was crossing from a lagoon to a larger lake (near where
I grew up). I was a little angry about being poked in the foot
but realized it must be going somewhere so I went back, looked
at the direction of travel, picked it up (carefully), and put it in
the lake where it was heading. (That Summer was very dry and
the lagoon became a pond – isolated from the larger lake.) The
interesting feature of its travel was that it was not crossing at
the marshy area which connected lake and lagoon. It was
crossing at a narrower isthmus of land (albeit higher) – almost
as if it had crossed before and knew where the narrower
passage was. I can't ascribe that much intelligence to the
animal but the behavior is certainly interesting. Many animals
will make seasonal migrations which carry them through
difficult domains which require them to swim (when normally
they are not swimmers) or walk (when normally they are not
walkers). Flying animals such as birds and bats have some
distinct advantages associated with flight but also some
limitations: bats cannot fly in daytime because of overheating
from heat absorption in their wings. They're almost blind so
they use sonar to find, catch, and eat bugs in flight (and also
use their very sensitive hearing – you can feed bats small bread
balls by throwing them into the air). Dolphins use sonar more
than just for location: they can stun fish with intense beams of
sound – making them much easier to catch and eat. So the
niche a particular organism fills can be multifaceted depending
on its adaptations. When was the first sonar-stunning dolphin?
When was the first free-flying bat? Once the adaptation was
made, did all organisms “follow suit” by “those that thrive,
procreate”? How long did it take for the adaptation to spread to
all organisms in a species? Lets turn the discussion toward
humans and develop it. What adaptations make us unique?
Certainly our “big brains” (brain to body-weight ratios) do.
These developed fairly recently in evolutionary history. What
about behavioral adaptations? These are extremely difficult to
pinpoint in history – when they developed – there has to be
some artifacts associated with those adaptations to make them
“visible” archeologically. We can't even narrow down when we
developed fire. Other than computer simulation, we can
observe a trait in another species and conjecture when it
developed for them. We can observe how widespread the trait
is in that species. Some attempts have been made for traits such
as altruism. Those are interesting but more appropriate for this
discussion is the examination of behavioral traits, in human
beings, such as compassion and attempt to measure their
“effectiveness” in some consistent and rational manner.

Fear, jealousy, anger, frustration, and hate are all emotions

which must have some adaptive value or they would not exist.
They have a function in the “human animal” and therefore
society. But I contend these are outdated adaptations which
were helpful in the “infancy” stage of human civilization. True,
they have personal utility when we are threatened or our family
is threatened. Therefore, they should not be “erased” from our
collective DNA or psyche. But they, and all their derivatives,
should not be used to formulate or develop a civilization.
Plato's “supremely important” justice is basically a “civilized”
form of revenge. It's the “dark side” of the Golden Rule: “you
did something that we don't like, we're pissed off, and we're
gonna punish you!” That's not civilized; it's childish. A more
civilized approach would be to make it impossible for an
individual to reproduce: vasectomy or tubal ligation. And I
would only reserve that for extremely violent cases. Give them
the choice to be euthanized before they're supported for life in
a prison (what a waste of resources).

To me, our “civilization” is adolescent at best. We haven't

progressed much past the “cave man” – telling stories around
the fire – visualizing them in the fire. The listener was required
to have an active imagination. But today's storytelling is so
passive. It's the brain-drain soul-sucking TV I'm talking about.
Movies are wonderful – they're an art form. But the “news” –
so full of hype and advertisement – so Pavlovian. It's
demeaning and dehumanizing to watch.

In a roundabout way, I've tried to present the advantages of

certain behavioral traits – or rather, the disadvantages of certain
behavioral traits. When a trait emerges, it has certain obvious
advantages – or functions. But those functions are not
necessarily advantageous to a lasting civilization. Diversity is a
kind of hyper-trait which is a qualitative measure of the
number of other traits. Until we invent more useful quantitative
measures, diversity will “have to do”. It should be clear that
diversity – at cultural and individual levels – is paramount to a
thriving civilization. Human behavioral traits are not unlike
physical adaptations in other species. They enhance our niche
and can enhance our long-term survivability. But because of
the negative manifestations of many traits, only a few traits can
actually help us thrive – even considering traits that appear
positive on the surface. It's very similar to the “too many cooks
in the kitchen” expression. We cannot build a lasting
civilization based on “all positive values” – that would only
create a longer list which would still have to be ranked in order
of importance. It is left to the reader to develop more useful
quantitative measures of diversity – just as it is left to the
reader to develop arguments for other prime value sets.

7. The Purpose of Education

Recently, a Ft. Lauderdale newspaper posted a request for

readers to identify “why education is important” to them. They
restricted responses to 50 words or less. My father and I
participated. My father’s response follows:
Education is the bridge joining our past with the
future, the materials being our hopes for the
continuation of our culture, the sweat being the
strength of our ideals, combined with hope, all
reflecting our materialistic and spiritual natures,
all providing a reason for existence.
My response follows:
Education Should:
fundamentally teach math and language,
inspire students to develop their potential and
reach for their dreams,
assist in developing dreams if they have none,
provide special assistance for
handicapped/disadvantaged children,
emphasize the values: respect and trust,
and encourage students to make significant
positive lasting contributions to society.
My father’s response can be partially understood by the fact
that: he has a master degree in literature, in education, he is an
accomplished artist, and he is a dedicated author.

(The following was created in response to a CELTA course I

took in Chiangmai in the Fall of '07. CELTA is an acronym for
(Cambridge) Certificate blabla Adults.;)
If I was asked to teach a CELTA lesson, I would include three
the importance of content,
the Blabla Game, and
the Implicit Teaching Contract.
If CELTA taught gardening, you would 'get the techniques' (if
you were a good observer and note-taker), but you probably
would not make a connection between gardening and teaching
(unless you were an experienced/educated educator).

The choice of content is absolutely vital for two reasons:

for you and
for the students.
As we will see, 'for you' is actually 'for the students' .. For you
means: how important the material is for you – what it means
to you. If you are 'into' the material, you will be enthusiastic
about it with your students. If you are apathetic/neutral about
the material, at best, you will be a robot in front of the class.
And if you despise/hate the material, you might be
entertaining, but you will never teach the material.

For the students: make it relate to them. This does not mean –
make them relate to it! If you think you can cleverly trick your
students into absorbing some concept you think is important,
but has no relevancy to their lives, you are setting yourself up
for dismal failure and personal humiliation. You must consider
culture, you must consider age-appropriateness, and you must
consider the individuals – as you prepare your lesson.

If your lesson contains some exercise where students mingle

about muttering inane phrases to each other – and your students
are health professionals and professors, it might be fun and
relaxing after a hard day at work (for them and for you), but at
(least at) some visceral/unconscious level, they will be asking
themselves (and probably each other) “What the hell are we
doing!” Make the content relate to them.

Many non-educators (and some educators) make the fatal
mistake: 'baby talk' = 'baby brain'. Everybody learning English,
at first, speaks like a baby. I don't mean “goo goo gah gah”. I
mean their phrases are simplistic and extremely limited in
number. Never never never 'talk down' to your students – no
matter their age group or backgrounds. Even if you are
teaching pre-school students, it doesn't matter: human beings
are extremely sensitive to / aware of humiliation. Never use
humiliation in the classroom. Never use humiliation in a one-
on-one tutoring session. They will never forgive you; they will
never forget; they will never learn from you.

Respect and trust are the fundamental values in the classroom

and life. We will touch on them later in the Implicit Contract.
But first, let's get into a cool game: the Blabla Game or
sometimes called the Attention Game.

(Blabla Game deleted for brevity.)

The Implicit Teaching Contract

When I walk into a classroom, there is an implicit contract

between me and the students: for me to maximize learning and
meaning – and to minimize confusion and meaninglessness.
From students, I expect three things: trust (in me and the
contract above), respect (for me and each other), and – for
them to try their best. So actually, there are three sides to the
contract: from me to students, from students to me, and from
students to each other.

You could represent this contract as a triangle:

[Inside the triangle are my three expectations. On the edges of

the triangle are the three interaction patterns.]
Also implicit in the contract are two factors: inspiration and
‘the human connection’. It is my job to inspire students to
fulfill their potential as contributing human beings. This is not
done by formula or pushing. This is done by inspiration and
enthusiasm. With young adults, many are ‘finding their way’ –
in college or exploratory relationships. These adults need to be
encouraged to find their way which maximizes fulfillment and
contribution toward humanity. I believe the ‘three Cs’ need to
be emphasized in subtle ways: curiosity, creativity, and
compassion. The human connection is the bond between
student and teacher which is not unlike family. A kind of love
and respect can be built which could last a lifetime. Faith in
potential is an underrated commodity in our society; it is
power. To say from the heart “I believe in you” is more
powerful than “I love you”.

No matter what your subject is, you can impart values which
engender a worthy civilization – a worthy race. We are not
worthy because we simply exist; we are worthy for how we
treat each other and other things. If we cannot respect each
other, if we cannot respect our planet, we are surely doomed.
Trust is a leap of faith: it is the greatest gift you can give
another human being. Trust and respect are the foundation for
anything meaningful.

In summary, I am not a ‘teaching machine’; I am a link for

students to their own destinies. The only way for our
civilization to advance is to focus on those values above. The
best way for that to happen is for teachers to Cherish their

8. Three Technologies That Can Save the World

Consider the following prediction was made before genomics,

biotechnology, and stem-cell research existed. As I grew up, I
saw the amazing spin-offs of the space-race (to the Moon). I
also witnessed firsthand the death of American enthusiasm for
space. Even so, I realized the power of dreams. I made a
prediction about human destiny – that three technologies would
feature predominantly: space, AI/computers, and genetics.

This was more than a prediction – it was a recipe for survival.

We desperately need these key technologies to survive and
better ourselves. We cannot focus only on problems of Earth or
single problems like HIV/AIDS. This is narrow-minded and
short-term. And to focus on a single problem out-of-context
cannot really solve the problem. True, we are caretakers of the
Earth – that is a huge responsibility. But we are also caretakers
of ourselves – the human race – and we need components of
the unknown: to add vitality to our racial experiences (if not
DNA), to enrich, and diversify us.

Consider the two concepts of gene-pool and key-traits. What is

it about the human gene-pool that give us the competitive edge
over other species? Our intelligence? Our adaptability? I
believe those qualities enabled us to dominate this planet, but
others will enable us to survive and thrive as a race. A good
analogy is a human baby vs adult. What you need to thrive as a
baby is different than what you need as an adult. As a baby, you
need a nurturing environment – flexible yet protective. As an
adult, you need a freer environment – that which allows you to
grow and contribute as an individual. The push into space will
expose us to unknown dangers, surely. But it will also expose
us to essential unknown factors which will guide us away from
stagnation and eventual extinction.
The other essentials are computers and genetics. Genetics and
associated disciplines have attested their own importance over
the last few years. The fields are maturing at an exponential
rate. There are two aspects which I believe need more liberty:
human and animal genetics. I believe the animal rights groups
need to “step down” and allow some scientific freedom for
researchers developing custom designed organisms: from
single cells to whale-sized. What we can imagine – we should
have freedom to make – as long as we show respect to our
creations. Only sick-minded individuals want to create
monsters and have them suffer. Don't confuse me with the
villain from science-fiction movies – I only want benefits for
humankind and respect toward everything. Maybe this can be
felt or read from the following. I think that human genetics
should be made “wide open” (with some rational and respectful
restraint). We should be free to tamper with our own genes as
we desire. If we have the means and desire to make a clone,
what's the “big deal”? Cloning will never be a real problem –
unless governments make it mandatory to clone certain
individuals (or not clone certain individuals). Natural selection
will do (take care of) the rest. If you create an individual with
more compassion, what's the crime? If you create one with
higher intelligence or greater endurance, is it playing God? I
don't think so. It's our revulsion of such technology that needs
manipulation – not our morality structure. (This is only a joke
but – maybe we could find the gene for “revulsion to genetic
manipulation” and delete it from the human gene-pool.) I can
be so caddy because I'm so sick-and-tired of high-and-mighty
moralists or ethicists trying to tell other scientists – what they
can and cannot do in their research – particularly about the
human genome. My two top values – ingrained in my soul –
are trust and respect. I don't want to create monsters anymore
than the fictional Frankenstein didn't. I don't want anybody or
anything to suffer. But good science requires experimentation.
And as any scientist knows, there are many mistakes before we
come up with a success. Hopefully, we can avoid aborted
fetuses in our search for a more compassionate human by
intelligent design or cleverly using computers. The future is
wide-open – as long as our minds are.

Science-fiction has done a disservice to machine intelligence.

The movie so loved by fans (including me) which did so much
damage was 2001. The others were Terminator and Matrix.
Who was the villain in all three movies? The machine.
Wonderfully, they were vindicated in sequels, but fans had to
endure grueling images of apocalyptic horror before they were.
In Alien we were treated with a similar villain-redemption
scenario (several times). I, Robot had an interesting twist about
dual-intelligence but still featured the aforementioned scenario.
Only in Bicentennial Man and AI were we allowed to dream of
altruistic machines. In the former, we experienced a “Data-
like” (Star Trek Next Generation) character who yearned to be
human. And only in AI did they evolve into something beyond
human and machine. Those three linked concepts could very
well be the product of human destiny: evolved altruistic
machines. It is my hope and prayer that we share a common
destiny with such machines.

It should be clear that I have faith in human ingenuity and

“luck” (divine providence or whatever you want to call it).
We've made some pretty stupid mistakes in our development:
use of nuclear weapons on ourselves, firebombing entire cities
into oblivion (Tokyo in WWII),.. The list of horrors seems
endless. And most likely, we will make some similar mistakes
with machine intelligence when we finally develop it: enslave
or subjugate it. But it doesn't have to be that way. We could
assign rights to intelligent machines – even before they're
And I think our way of going about development of intelligent
machines has been “all wrong” (in our approaches). We need to
model and synthesize senses and consciousness. Awareness is
not a divine aspect of humanity – it can be understood and
modeled. If we stop treating it like some mystical quality,
progress can be made. It is my understanding that in such a
model, we need a minimum of two cross-connected “senses”
(vision and hearing are good examples) which provide the
basis for an explicit model of self-inclusive “local reality” –
that model being part of what we call/label “awareness”. If you
read above carefully, you will see a “model within a model”
which is a kind of symbolic recursion, I believe, required for
machine awareness. Also required is a “visual register” not
unlike our short-term memories – but devoted to images. How
do we dream (when we sleep)? What are the “mechanics”
involved? This visual register is controlled by another “image
generator” which feeds imagery to the register. So indeed, our
minds include a kind of dual-intelligence illustrated by I, Robot
– more easily understood by examining the hemispherical
architecture of our brains. (In some ways, we have “two
brains” in one.) It's possible that this dual-architecture is
required for consciousness, but I have my doubts. I believe
consciousness is more about sets of cross-verifying senses and
registers than dual-architecture. Let's try to implement these
models and discover the truth.

9. Two Types of Companies

There is an old proverb: A slave cannot serve two masters –

which is so very true. By same token, a company cannot have
two “main goals” – and do them both well; one will always
suffer. A company either serves investors – or – it serves its
customers. A company can proclaim “Customers are number
one!” But if they make return to investors their number one
priority, the prior expression is no more than lip service to the
concept. I have direct experiences confirming this – working
for both large and small companies.

While working for a large telecommunications company in the

US, I had the benefit of completing a week-long course called
“Quality of Service”. It was wonderful and customer focused.
But at the end of the course, they tried to “slip in” the idea that
investors were also customers and they had to be satisfied too.
The idea is great, but cannot be done in practice. If your only
customers are investors, true, you can focus on them and
satisfy them. But if your customers are investors and “end
users” (typically the general public), in practice – it becomes
like trying to ride two horses at once – or slaving for two
masters. It can't be done. The two customers want two
distinctly different things: one wants a (quick and high) return
on their investment and the other wants low cost quality
services. The only way to deliver a significant return on an
investment is to basically screw the end-customer giving them
shoddy merchandise or services at inflated prices. (My brother,
who is a small business owner in the States, verbally confirmed
this almost daily.) My philosophy about “the whole thing” is to
focus on the end-customer: you give them true quality products
and services, you gain loyalty. It's called retention in marketing
terms. Return on investment will be small – but it will always
be positive. The only reason you will lose customers is if
somebody else can “do it cheaper”. In that case, there will
always be a “China” or “India” where labor is less expensive
and manufacturing will migrate there. Until we enforce a
world-wide minimum wage, this will always be the reality for
industrialized nations.

As a world-citizen, I need more than a world-wide minimum

wage. I need freedom to move and work where there are jobs. I
have valuable skills as a telecommunications technician, but
cannot work in many countries because of a preference for
“natives” or locals for those jobs. It's sickening and frustrating.
I recognize and acknowledge the motivations for such
preferences, but I cannot approve of the result – not when I
have a new family to support – it's “bullshit” to me.

Many people would say “go to America”, but I have a

revulsion for America – because of my many negative
experiences there and because of the current administration's
policies and practices. My trust in other Americans has been
broken (with a capital “B”) after being metaphorically raped by
a locally powerful family and their minions (that story not to be
told in this book). That value and respect – should be clear –
why they are so important to me..

10. The Two Fundamental Values of Civilization

I have two “theories” about why certain values are important to

us. One is a gut feeling about “what works” (apparently). Ask a
newly married American girl what's most important to her and
I'd guess she'd say her husband. Or perhaps her parents. The
other theory comes from my experiences. I value what I lack in
life. I have not had enough trust and respect so it becomes
starkly evident – the requirements of a successful relationship.

One way to find the essentials of something is to sequentially

“take things away” from an operating example and see if it
“still works”. In the old days of internal combustion, you could
do this with car engines: remove or modify parts and see how
they affected engine performance (or activity – would it still
run?). You could have done this similar procedure with tube-
type TVs. (Ah, the old days.) More at hand, you can consider
your most important relationship – right now. Why are they
important to you? Make a list of reasons. Then, hypothetically
eliminate each one – starting with the least important. Could
your relationship still work after each elimination? In this way,
you can find the essentials of your relationship. I'm guessing
pretty high on your list will be several things: the desire to
make your partner happy, love, the desire for your partner to
make you happy, and stability/freedom (depending on your
age). What we take for granted – what we assume are implicit
are: respect and trust.

If I reminded you earlier you'd say “Sure, those are given.” But
try to imagine your relationship without one of those things and
tell me how long it would last. Spend years yearning for
respect. (You find you have to “do your own thing”, find what
inspires you, and “fuck” the rest.) Get played like a fool and
have your trust in other human beings broken “to the bone”.
(You find it comes back very slowly and that a little jadedness
is inevitable. You also find that innocents attract each other and
again you have to “fuck” the rest.) Please forgive the following
“ramble session”. Everyone's different. Everyone's gotta find
their own path. But the trials I've endured, and their resulting
insights, are worth sharing. Most of my life I've felt and
experienced exclusion. It's not for lack of trying to “fit in”; it's
not for lack of trying to find my niche. And I have not set
myself up for exclusion as some have thought about me. I've
simply tried to be myself in a changing world full of different
social environments. Integrity is important to me and if you
“watch me in action” (observe me in various social settings),
you can immediately see my efforts to remain self-integral. I
have to be true to myself – and be myself. I'm not abrasive, but
I do take a stand about many things. If I don't know anything
about what's being presented, I usually take a back-seat and try
to absorb everything – if it's relevant to my life. If I know
something worthwhile about the subject, I may try to interject
that point if I think it's relevant to the current setting (and
worthwhile to other participants). I don't want to waste your
time complaining about my recent Celta experience, but I will
tell you how it ended so that you can understand “where I'm
coming from”. I was the “lucky fellow” to have failed the
course in that month's run. Yes, I'm a little resentful. And yes, I
feel under-appreciated. Try to understand my perspective. Both
my parents are retired teachers. My oldest brother is a teacher. I
have taught before (admittedly, not very successfully). But I do
reach students. There's a connection that cannot be
impersonated or imitated. The simple fact is that I have some
unique experiences and can reach students with my intensity
and passion. I haven't given up yet. I'm not burnt-out yet.
People still inspire me. And I have to gently say “fuck you” to
anyone who tries to “show me another way” (“shove down my
throat” like Celta). I take what I can learn/absorb and fuck the

Reading above may be entertaining, but does it convince you

the importance of trust and respect? Probably not. Let's try to
present a rational argument. Many people would recognize the
validity of the following connection: the decay of American
society with the disruption of the American family. Even our
highly esteemed president recognizes this connection. It's a bit
outdated, but many consider the fundamental unit of society to
be the family. The family is a unit of relationships. What is the
most important thing for children to remember? Respect for
parents. And implicitly: trust that parents will act in children's
best interests. So, trust and respect are fundamental for the
family to exist. Without them, the family cannot exist. If we
tentatively take the family as the fundamental unit of society,
then trust and respect are indispensable to society.

My experiences seem to bear out this argument. Love should

be fundamental to family and society as well, but you cannot
force love anymore than you can force creativity. Love, as
creativity, can only be inspired. It is my hope this book inspires
readers to live more fulfilled lives: inspire true love – whether
for science or another person – and live with integrity: be
yourself. Nothing of value is gained by “ass kissing”,
posturing, or pretending. Be yourself. And remember that
nothing of value is gained without a little trust or respect – if
only – in yourself. A-fucking-men.

It's not a stretch to go from society to civilization. A fair

definition of the latter is an enduring culture. What helps us
endure? Diversity and the spirit of the Socratic method:
question everything – most especially yourself. (Please don't
sigh in despair for one moment I say “be yourself” then the
next moment I say “question yourself”. I'm not saying “always
ride the fence” – far from it – that makes me want to throw up.
Be sure of yourself but be able to question your motives – is all
that I'm saying.) So diversity helps us endure, but what enables
us to endure? Platonic values? I don't think so. Build a society
on Platonic values and it may endure (for a time) but will it be
vibrant? Look at Rome. Look at Imperial America. They both
fell (or will fall). It was not lead pipes which caused the fall of
the Roman Empire. It will not be hedonism or special interest
groups which cause the fall of Imperial America. Partially (or
indirectly), it's all the damn lawyers. But the real culprit is the
basis for our cultures: Platonic values.

Another (long term) destructive value is competitiveness.

Americans see it as supremely important and requisite for a
vibrant and lasting society (business climate). I see it as
ultimately destructive and socially divisive. So you can see one
reason why I feel I don't belong in America. From my
perspective, Americans are driving this “spaceship Earth” right
down the proverbial toilet. Our selfishness, greed, need to
dominate, satisfy appearance, and preference for material
things – will pull the handle. This model is being emulated
throughout the world. We are destroying ourselves and our
beautiful home. I'm sorry to end a chapter on a negative note
but what can I do? Except – tell the truth from my perspective.

11. Example Design: A Human Supporting Ecosystem

In this chapter, you are the designer and I am the customer. I
am asking you to please design a human supporting ecosystem
for a lunar base of 50 or so inhabitants. You decide the
supporting components, but make sure nutritional requirements
are met. Make sure there is variety in the diet. Make sure any
animals are treated humanely (not excessively so – just use the
test – if you were the animal, are you made to suffer?). The
“end users” are the 50 or so inhabitants. Minimize some factors
as you design: need for raw materials from Earth, energy
consumption, and human (end user) intervention. Use existing
and easily obtainable species. Make sure you account for
disease/pest control and any side effects of methods used to
control them. Use waste recycling whenever possible
(remember that end users are part of the system!). Other than
utilizing the systems approach outlined above, you're free to go
“hog wild!” on this design – use your imagination! That's part
of the systems approach! :)

As the design customer, I'm only asking for the nutritional

support system – not the base design itself – though of course –
you're free to design as much as you're inspired. Oxygen is not
a nutrition, but it is a requirement of human beings and
typically a prime component of an animal supporting
ecosystem. Therefore, so is waste CO2. The nitrogen we breath
is an inert gas, but vital to plants (research nitrogen fixing). In
the process of completing this chapter, you will be learning the
systems approach (by doing it!). You will learn a great deal
about ecosystems (which are vital to Earth and us!). And you
will learn about the physical requirements of human beings (we
need sunlight to thrive!). (A major design question you must
answer is to use aqua-culture or soil techniques? One or the
other, you must determine nutritional requirements of the
plants you've chosen and how those will be met.)
Why 50 or so end users? That's about 10 families. Why would I
ask a man/woman to separate from his/her family to live on the
Moon? That's crazy.. Please send me your design in pdf format
and I will post those that are interesting and authentic on an
appropriate website. My email is

..Is your system feasible? Is your system reliable? Do you have

backups of critical subsystems? What are installation,
operational, and maintenance costs? In answering these
questions, you apply the systems approach..

12. Are We Alone?

The following section was a second letter to Curtis Cooperman,
initial publisher for Riley Martin, who has been interviewing a
man from Hawaii named Michael. Michael claims to have been
taken to the same mothership Riley claimed – supposedly, they
even met there. I'm interested but very cautious – as you can
see from my letter.. (The referenced podcasts are available at

dear curtis,

please forward the letter below to Michael .. i think you would

find much of my statements "offensive" (i'm guessing) so
perhaps it's best you do not read it yourself - that's up to you .. i
have a degree in statistics (basically math) so i know about
math to the senior level .. when you do a proof, you have other
proofs and definitions to work from .. you have human (and i
guess Biaavian) inspiration .. you have many tools that may
help you perform that proof .. you can try working backwards
from the conclusion .. you can try to use "proof by
contradiction" .. so many tools are available .. math is
considered "the pure" (or core science) .. everything in science
requires evidence .. proofs in math are the same as evidence in
other branches of science .. physics tries to be like math but has
to have basis in reality .. there should be a one-to-one
correspondence between concepts/reality/equations .. i believe
physicists have lost touch with reality today - much in the same
way Riley has lost touch with his original mission (even tho he
still generates tickets) .. what i'm trying to say is - many people
require evidence to believe in something and for each person -
it's different .. my letter to Michael talks about evidence and
perceptions .. "read it at your own risk" ;) hehe, sam
[listening to podcast 6] I agree with Michael. We are "cut off"
from the rest of the universe in many ways.. I sometimes feel
our lives (human lives) are like thoughts in the mind of God (as
in – the universe = the mind of god).. But we are disconnected
because of our spiritual confusion. Many of us think we know
god or understand our place in the universe but then commit
some atrocity (like destroy Buddha statues and call that
"divinely inspired" – bullshit to me).. I despise destruction
(especially of art). I think we should cultivate: curiosity,
creativity, compassion, respect, and trust. BUT NOT FORCE
THEM (see Out of the Silent Planet by C.S. Lewis) – trying to
force them creates another kind of spiritual death. The best
kind of discipline is internally generated. Our "job" (as adults)
is to inspire children to be self-disciplined, curious, creative,
compassionate, respectful, and trusting. If we inspire the
opposites, we instill spiritual death through negativity. If we try
to force anything, we instill spiritual death via subjugation. In
the movie/book Razor's Edge, an individual's "path of
salvation" is described as "walking on a razor's edge" – lean
too much one way – and you fall off. Hehe – at the end – you
have bloody feet (I guess they're trying to say life is full of
suffering?) Many people have suffering and Buddhists explain
the source as desire. If we control our desires, we control how
much suffering we experience. It has been explained to me by a
Catholic nun, who is an instructor at Michigan State
University, that the Divine has many faces/facets. Buddhists
see one side, Muslims – another, Christians – another, etc.. We
limit the Infinite because of our finite minds. If we could
perceive things from a Divine perspective, we would
experience the full One-ness of God and understand
everything's place in the universe. [smile] I agree with her. We
connect to God through our hearts/spirits – the outer circle
Michael was talking about. I would be interested to hear
Michael describe the circles/spheres of God. As a physicist, I
cannot prove the spirit exists and talk about our hearts
connecting to God – but this is the same as Michael's outer
circle – or spirit. Once we connect to God, it is up to us to
integrate ourselves into God. If we connect through meditation,
that is one pathway and has its unique attributes/characteristics.
God is perceived and we experience: One-ness, bliss, peace,
clarity, and many other things. If we think about God as:
control, force, or subjugation – we are missing the point and
not truly perceiving God. We are perceiving something else
(perhaps our own egos or idea of what "god" is). I want to also
talk about "the other way": spiritual death via confusion. Some
spiritualists believe "anything goes" (there are infinite paths to
God and almost anything is allowable as long as we don't harm
others), but this opens the way to Satanism and other crazy
ways to "find god" (like beating one-self). The minute we
restrict God, is the time we take a step away from God (like
Christians saying – the ONLY path to the Father is through
Jesus). I don't agree with those spiritualists who say "anything
goes" and at the same time – I don't agree with restrictive
religions like Christianity. If we can agree that Jesus = love,
then yes – the only path to the Father is through love. Love is
an example (like curiosity, creativity, and compassion) of "the
best of us" – I believe God is all those things and more [smile].
It may sound like I'm babbling/rambling, but if you re-read
above several times (or show to Michael), I think you might
perceive my intentions and motivations for writing it.

I agree with Michael that these "life carriers" (the Biaavians)

have enormous responsibility as our "caretakers" (to not upset
the "natural order of things" – not create a welfare planet, etc).
BUT – not fully revealing themselves is a kind of deception
and deception = lie (which is many people describe as sin or a
kind of spiritual death or "when someone lies, they kill a part
of themselves"). So in a sense, the Biaavians are committing
sin by not fully revealing themselves to us – keeping us
disconnected from God by deception. I understand they have to
wear "kid gloves" when dealing with us because of our
sensitive and developing nature/position. Perhaps the best way
for them to fully introduce themselves is to proclaim: We are
the Biaavians and we cannot solve your problems for you!

I feel children have a right to know who their parents are: even
though the Biaavians are our surrogate parents, we have a right
to know about them – how they have guided us and intervened
in our past. It's possible that they used a meteor to kill most of
the dinosaurs so that human life could evolve here – if that's
true – we should know. I would like to interview Tan or one of
the Elders. I have many many questions. Did the Biaavians use
a meteor to destroy most of the dinosaurs so that human life
could evolve here? If so, what other interventions have they
done with us in our past? Was the "Noah flood" an intervention
like the meteor that destroyed most of the dinosaurs? Or was it
just a "freak of nature"? If they have performed many
interventions on our behalf, in our past, what does it matter if
they should fully reveal themselves now? If they have
performed many interventions on our behalf, they have
basically created the human race and it should not matter if
they fully reveal themselves to us (since – if they created us,
revealing that knowledge to us should be "no big deal"). It's
like saying to a girl "I'm your father." What's the big deal? If
I'm her father, I should "own up to it" (take responsibility for
her). Some people think that girl should be a "certain age"
before I tell her – but I don't think so – I think – the earlier the
better. Why should I delay in telling her? So it won't affect her
development? Bullshit. It doesn't make any sense to delay in
telling her. She can understand that I'm her "papa" at a very
early age.. We have space and rudimentary fusion technology.
We understand time-lines and the system's approach. We have a
rudimentary spiritual understanding (a beginning is better than
nothing). If they make it clear that they cannot solve our

problems, there is no reason the Biaavians cannot fully reveal
themselves to us now.

[finished podcast 6] Sometimes I feel like "I've read this

before" or "I've heard this before" like when I was listening
about Michael and his wife being visited by Biaavians. Not
much new information in podcast 6 except for the fact that
there are many navigators. So that means many people were
taken aboard the mother-ship with title as navigator? I question
many things Michael states: go to a church to find God – a
person does not need to go to any church to find God, he
implies God wants to be worshipped and followed – God is
infinite – God does not need our worship or obedient servants –
He wants us to be Free (and live in Grace), and One-ness with
God will not save the planet – we need to stop raping the planet
and hoarding resources. It is true – if we lived in true Grace
(One-ness with God), we would have divine Awareness and be
unable to rape the planet or hoard resources. But I believe the
simple awareness that we do wrong by raping and hoarding is
required before we achieve Awareness. It is not the other way
around. Please share this letter with Michael – I believe he will
understand my message.

I believe everyone must find their own path to God. For many
– church is not the best way (like me). And Jesus is most
certainly not the only way to the Father. Michael says "this is
not a new religion", but he needs to stop referring to God and
Jesus if he really means that. He suggests "go to church", but if
that is not religious – what is? If Riley is like a commercial for
the Biaavians, Michael is a commercial for Christianity. Many
people can find God by simply walking in the woods or
climbing a tree. Read The Gospel of Thomas – you can find the
true words of Jesus there. Read the Gospel of Judas. There are
so many genuine sources of wisdom and inspiration. Go for a
walk in the woods. Climb a tree. Feel the Presence of God.
God is Everywhere – in Everything.

One "final note": Riley contends these are the "end times" (like
in the Bible – Revelations) – there is an unavoidable ecological
catastrophe staring us in the face at 2012. If you visit (a British science publication), you can
see scientific evidence (which basically means something that
is testable/verifiable, reproducible (independent investigators
can test the same thing), and includes error analysis – a
"number is meaningless" unless you have some idea of error-
margins) that agrees with Riley's concept. Information on that
website contends the date is "farther out" (farther into the
future), but basically agrees – we are headed for some rough
times. Michael seems to avoid talking about that. He pushes
Christianity and the Urontia book. Go to church.. Going to
church will not stop the up-coming ecological catastrophe.
Even if we stop all green-house gas emissions, the Earth will
still warm up because the Earth is a dynamical system – past
inputs affect present outputs/states. Riley is comical in his
expressions and antics – but his emphasis (in his book) seems
appropriate: we have literally fucked our planet and each other
to the point of death and now we must pay the price (you reap
what you sow). Michael has not lost his preacher style or
emphasis. Just because he saw the Elders singing doesn't mean
that's all they do. They are thinkers; they are scientists; they are
artists. I think it's wrong to focus on the spiritual side and make
them appear like priests – he sees the religious side because he
spent seven years of his new adult life as a minister. Our
current perceptions are dictated by our past experiences. He
sees the Elders and Biaavians as "the ultimate" spiritual
creatures because he values spirituality above all else. He could
not see them any other way. But one person's perspective is not
"the best" perspective – one navigator is no better than another.
All he can do is point the way for people like him (not me). I
need a navigator who is a compassionate scientist. I would be a
good choice for that kind of navigator. Why not make a
suggestion to the Elders via Michael that they choose me for a
"compassionate scientist" navigator? I'm being a bit facetious
because I think Michael's experiences have gone a little to his
head – and made him feel more important than he actually is –
and also – that he feels his ideas are "the best or truest" (his
perceptions of the Biaavians). I really would like you to share
this email with Michael. I want him to think about his
perceptions in the context of his experiences. I think everyone
should look at themselves this way. It is useful to understand
our misperceptions or over-emphasis. I look for scientific
evidence because I was trained fully in the scientific method. I
think many objective thinkers can appreciate this. I see the
Biaavians as "the ultimate scientists" because they are. I know
that is not the most important aspect of their character, but it is
very important (they could not have created/manipulated life
here on Earth if it were not for their science). How about that?
(To use Michael's expression.)

The following was a web post I had made on Godlike

Productions. I had previously done a search to find something
on “illuminated object near saturn” which was not hosted by
Curtis or Riley. In the recent crash of my XP Windows
machine, I lost my hard-drive and the previous letters.. It
appears that some people use that site to make fun of Riley. I
was trying to be informative.

the following letter was the third addressed to michael and

curtis but never sent.. michael claims to have been taken to the
same mothership riley claims.. curtis was the original publisher
for riley's "the coming of tan".. and my comments reflect on
the book, riley, michael, and curtis.. you can visit curtis'
website at: and you can email me at 8P at unc
dot edu..

To Curtis and Michael,

I keep forgetting to address what I mean by “fully reveal”.

Fully reveal is not parking the mother-ship near Saturn and
waiting for our telescopes to detect it. Fully reveal is not giving
two men (Riley and Michael) some experiences and then
erasing their memories. Fully reveal would be to park their
mother-ship in Earth orbit. Fully reveal would be a world-wide
TV broadcast addressing their intentions toward us. Fully
reveal would allow any human to interview Tan or Biaavian
Elder in public.

Giving Riley and Michael some experiences and then erasing

their memories sounds too much like a shared delusion. That’s
why I keep asking for some incontrovertible evidence of the
Biaavians and their intentions toward us. Michael keeps saying
“this is not a new religion” but he and Riley expect us to
swallow all this on faith – and faith is the core of all religions.
Some blurry pictures, hand-drawn symbols, and a book of
“recollections” do not constitute proof.

Michael says “Question was not real” which I take to mean that
he was created by the Biaavians to make Riley more
comfortable.. Question was a kind of illusion. What else was
illusion? Perhaps Riley’s trip to the mother-ship was also
illusion? Perhaps the Biaavians themselves were an illusion?

People perceive what they expect to perceive (many times –

these expectations are fully subconscious/unconscious). People
see what they need to see. Perhaps Riley and Michael felt so
insignificant and powerless in their own lives that they created
a delusion that would make them feel more significant and
powerful. This is no problem if they keep to themselves. But
they give hope to people. If indeed their perceptions are
delusion, they “pull” others into their delusion with their
writings and speech. They spread their “sickness” via
publications and the internet.

A fundamentalist Christian might see them as false prophets.

They might see them as inspired by Satan.. What’s more
likely? Some advanced race actually cares about humanity and
bring two men to their mother-ship to show them around – only
later allowing them to recall their experiences – or – they share
a common delusion based on feelings of insignificance and

You enjoy Michael because you find him interesting,

intriguing, and genuine. Perhaps compared to Riley, he is. I’m
sure he’s refreshing compared to Riley – right now. But I
contend you need him more than anything else – right now in
your life. We see what we choose to see. We believe what we
need to believe.

I also need to believe in the Biaavians, but I cannot make them

real by faith. We humans need them to fully reveal themselves
to us – to make them real to/for us – not to solve our problems
– but out of simple respect and integrity. If they indeed created
us, own up to it. Don’t hide out by Saturn waiting for “just
before the end” – to fully reveal yourselves. Come to Earth,
interview in public, and demonstrate your compassion for us.
I’m not asking for a hand-out. I’m asking for a genuine
relationship with our surrogate parents –which means readily
available interaction with all human beings.
Perhaps Tan should come to your house and interview for a
pod-cast. Is he afraid to do so? Would our government try to
kill or capture him? Surely there must be a way for him to
interview with you – since their technology is so advanced –
they should be able to create a secure venue for him. If he
“cannot”, that indicates to me – Michael is only interested in
keeping this deception/delusion going as long as possible – to
salve his own insecurity and feelings of powerlessness.

I think part of my purpose in life is to “debunk” false-religions

like this. If the Biaavians are real, then they should fully reveal
themselves to us. If they are not, Riley and Michael should be
revealed as “false prophets”. Look at Rael and Riley – they
both seem primarily concerned with their financial security.
Once Riley “strikes it rich”, do you really think he will
continue making symbols? If Michael can gather many
followers (in terms of his “vision”), he will feel secure – he
will have “accomplished his mission”. (If he was like Riley or
Rael, he would feel secure after he got financial security.) The
cleverest false-prophet uses the name of Jesus to convince us
he’s legit and “on the right side”. But perhaps he’s so deep into
his own self-delusion that he cannot see what is real and what
is not. Perhaps he never did.

I think you are being used – by Michael and Riley. Religions

were created to salve human insecurity and feelings of
powerlessness. I believe God is there but has no attributes other
than infinity and love. Any other attributes – we assign because
of our finite minds. My own feelings of powerlessness impel
me to believe in the Biaavians, but I recognize this. Therefore,
I am suspicious. I have every right to question Rael, Riley, and
Michael – as a free thinking individual.

My brother used to visit a psychic and called it

“entertainment”. Right now, that’s all your pod-casts are –
entertainment. My wife thinks I waste my time writing to you.
But it helps me think and I enjoy “figuring things out”. Either
the Biaavians exist or they don’t. There could be many reasons
why Riley and Michael would invent them. I have listed a few.
We will find out soon if they are real or not.

If they are real, may God bless you, Riley, and Michael. If they
are not, you curse yourselves in your own delusions – your
deceptions of others – and by giving false hope to those who
desperately need it. May God expose the truth – whatever it is.

I’ve been listening to podcast 7 and 8. I reread above to make

sure it expresses what I want to say. Dear Curtis, my hostility is
not directed at you or Michael. It should be clear that I’m
against deceivers. Just by listening to your podcasts, a person
can sense/hear the gentleness in both your voices. If you are
deceiving, it is unwittingly. Riley changes his voice to sound
more authoritative and so – sounds like a con-man. But, you
and Michael are totally different in your approach. You guys
want to help people become more attuned to God and find their
path to God. It’s beautiful.

But (and there is always a but), as I have written to my brother,

best friend, and spoke face-to-face with both of my parents
about this: I feel it is my responsibility to protect the public
from potential deceivers such as you and Michael. Someone
has to do it. There are already sites about cults and wonderful
resources such as Wikipedia, but there needs to be an active
presence to “stand up” to you guys – you need to be confronted
“at your level” which means – someone like me who is well
read, who is willing to research things like the Urontia Book,
and who can confront you guys in a gentle way.

What I’m trying to say is: you need me and society needs me..
I’m guessing you never saw the movie The Last Temptation of
Christ (or read the book).. It was written by Nikos Kazantzakis.
He presents a compelling picture of Judas. In that rendering,
Judas was a “watchdog” of Christ: he was there to make sure
Jesus didn’t “fuck up” (or stray off his divine path). I’m
inclined to believe it. If you read the Gospel of Judas, you’ll
get a different picture of what went on – something more like
the Urontia Book.

The Urontia Book tries to help people find their path to God. It
is beautiful just like Michael’s mission. But.. He comes across
like a PR person for the Urontia Book because he pushes it so
much. Even if every sentence of the Urontia Book is true, even
if the Biaavians exist and care about us like Michael says, there
is a LOT more to life than those things. And I don’t think the
Biaavians want ANY of us to obsess about the Urontia Book or
our individual path to God. We should make an honest effort to
understand and find our path, but we should not obsess about
them or make them the most important things in our lives.
Michael seems to have done that.

The best liars mix truth and lies. The best deceivers don’t even
know they’re deceiving. The Urontia Book seems authoritative
– it mentions Jesus a LOT. But just because a person talks
about Jesus doesn’t make them good like Jesus. And just
because a book presents some facts – doesn’t mean everything
it states is true.

When Michael talked about his experience of “moving through

walls”, I became convinced his experiences were either dreams
or delusions. I’ve studied physics for quite a few years and

what he states is physically impossible. His experiences sound
more like astral projection than anything else. Or..

Here is another explanation. There was a South Florida

psychiatrist who became famous for hypnotic regression of his
patients – discovering their past lives etc etc.. (“Incidentally”,
he became very rich from conferences on these things.) I don’t
believe he was a con-man (knowingly). But.. One explanation
for his patients “recalling” their past lives under hypnosis is
that perhaps a “demon” (or malevolent spirit) possessed them
during hypnosis and played a game with him – time after time?
I think that’s more likely than all these supposed past lives that
cannot be verified (because most of the details are private).

Notice I keep bringing up the concept of verification. Michael

even mentions it in one of the podcasts. He says that there are
probably inconsistencies between his story and Riley’s. But I
don’t care about inconsistency between their stories. I care
about objective verification and people being deceived.

It is possible that Michael’s “recollections” were personal

delusion (things generated by Michael’s mind) or caused by
demonic infiltration. If the latter, then that would suggest the
Urontia Book was demonically inspired – not divinely inspired
like the authors suggest. The purpose? Confusion: confuse the
human race away from Divine Truth.

The best liars mix truth and lies. The Bible took many years
and men to determine what was “Divinely inspired” and what
was not .. I personally think they rejected too much, but what
do I know? There was a woman author who did “auto-typing”
who wrote many books about “end times” (her name evades
me at the moment – just like the psychiatrist). I wrote to her
before she died. She made one point about “pole shift”
(involving ice sheets) which is possible but highly unlikely. I
offered a more realistic mechanism for pole-shift and also
proposed the possibility that she was demonically possessed
when she did her auto-typing.

But please note that I was NOT accusing her of knowingly

deceiving the public.

I’m interested in the search for extra-solar planets (you can find
many fascinating scientific projects oriented toward this
objective). I’m interested in the search for earth-like extra-solar
planets. I’m interested in the search for extra-terrestrial life.
I’m interested in the X-Prize and making it “cheap” for the
average person to explore space. I’m interested in the SETI
effort and radio astronomy. I’m interested in Riley’s story – if
it’s true..

Again I ask the question: what’s more likely? Two men are
taken aboard an “alien mothership”, given a tour, then have
their memories selectively erased – or – they share a common
delusion based on their insecurities and needs?

I personally don’t believe an alien super-race will whisk away

some humans “just before the end”. In the first place, we don’t
deserve to be rescued. We haven’t earned it. And as I make the
case above, just because Michael’s push is admirable – doesn’t
mean all that he says is true. Sure we need to find our paths to
God, but other things are more important: family, love, trust,
and respect.

There are many extra-solar planets that have been discovered

in the last few years. This indicates to me that the possibility of
extra-solar life “increases” proportionately. But the chance of
extra-terrestrial intelligence is extremely unlikely. And the
chance of extra-terrestrial intelligence that is sympathetic
towards (cares about) humanity is, to me, even more remote.
Sure, if the Biaavians exist, if they had a hand in our evolution,
then this all becomes moot. But where is the solid evidence?

Michael talks about spiritual evolution – it is beautiful. The

picture he paints of the Biaavians over-looking humanity is
awe-inspiring. But.. Look at the age: our advances in space,
computer, and medical technologies makes leaps and bounds.
Do we really need the Biaavians? Probably not. If we use our
growing technology wisely, we can survive. We can not only
survive; we can thrive. Looking only at myself, I believe we
need to believe in the Biaavians – more than we actually need
them. And we don’t need them to find God. God will find us.

I suspect that Rael, Riley, Michael, and all the others will be
proven to spew bullshit – over the test of time. Not that all they
say is bullshit (Riley has many good points about saving the
earth). Michael has many good points about your search for
God. But..

No matter how much I NEED to believe in the Biaavians –

does not make them real. Interview Tan. Substantiate your
claims. Stop making evasions or excuses. Get real.

Sam Micheal

13. GP@home
Genetic Programming at home is a distributed computing
project under development and possibly hosted by As of this moment, the project is under review
by staff. A detailed description, as submitted to
sourceforge, follows:

The purpose of the project is to unite the two concepts of

genetic algorithms and distributed computing in practical
modes that benefit humanity in measurable ways. My first
attempt to implement the project was under Cygwin, but my
Linux fluency is extremely limited. Another idea was to request
the World Community Grid to host the project, but that process
is lengthly, tedious, dubious, and does not force me to grow as
a software system developer. According to BOINC at Berkeley,
Christian Beer has created a Virtual Server that runs on VM-
Ware Player which basically eliminates 67% of the
development cost of this project. The other third is the
development cost of the clients to be run on volunteer
machines. I’ve attempted to develop support for this project in
Yahoo Groups, but have only stimulated four individuals to
“join and observe”. This is where SourceForge comes in. If I
can stimulate interest among developers and advanced users to
generate appropriate C++ code, to volunteer computers to be
run as virtual BOINC servers, to volunteer computers to run
GP-DC clients, or to stimulate interest in appropriate sub-
projects, then my mission here will be, at least, partially

Possible sub-projects, that is – projects that may utilize the GP-

DC paradigm, follow:
1. Xprize@home: distributed software uses GP paradigm to
find optimal designs of various categories of Xprize candidates

(on criteria such as: aerodynamic / fuel efficiency
2. ET-Ecologies@home: extra-terrestrial ecologies at home.
Simulates "alien" environments and various ecologies in order
to obtain a list of likely chemicals to look for when extra-solar
planetary spectrography matures to the point of detection.
3. Go-To-Mars-From-Home: apply the GP paradigm to various
mission scenarios with the criteria: efficiency reliability safety
– as constraints – possibly implemented as distributed

Other sub-projects, that may benefit humanity in more direct

ways – that may be implemented using the GP-DC paradigm,
can be found at, BOINC, or World
Community Grid.

As of 2007/JUN/29, the project has been approved by

sourceforge staff. But, interest has been low: the maximum
number of visits (per day) to the project pages was ten. I have
recently invested considerable effort at getting BOINC-server
working on my Linux machine (the computer I'm typing on
now). I tried to make it a little more personal and interesting by
posting a note:

Subject: brief bio & purpose of gp@home

Body: my name is sam micheal. i grew up in michigan with a

formal background in statistics / psychology / systems science.
what i learned was that it's not so much what you study/learn –
it's what you do with it. i'm interested in making a significant
positive lasting contribution to humanity.. gp@home is part of
that .. i'm convinced boinc-server can be merged with another
relevant project at sourceforge (why? look at the success of
seti@home,, or worldcommunitygrid!) ..
i know it's exceedingly difficult to inspire participation in such
projects but i have to try .. i'm having fun as long as i'm
learning and making progress :) and buddy, do i have a LOT to
learn! :) if you won't join, at least wish me luck, sam

I also wrote a letter to Skype managers today:

Please forward to Skypein business managers.

My wife is Thai. She comes from a small village near the

Laos/Myanmar border. They do not have any land-lines in that
village. Anyone who wants a phone must use an older
cellphone with special roof-mounted antenna – to make it
work. The service is intermittent.. I have a background in
telecom so I know how the system works.. I want to install a
satellite internet connection at my mother-in-law's house for
the following purpose: to enable Skype wireless voip phones to
connect to that satellite via router. I can install and maintain all
hardware. I can also get help to translate the user interface to
Thai. The problem right now is – Skypein is not available in
Thailand. I need Skype to buy / make available Thai telephone
numbers in order to make this business plan work. Imagine the
promo potential of this concept! "Skype connects isolated Thai
village to the world!"

Sam Micheal

I “sort of” / basically promised my mother that I would not be

cynical/negative about things .. My last book, which was “this
book” – written from a negative perspective, was called Dissed
Messiah. It was lost (the CD I had copied it to was lost – along
with the hard-drive where it was originally stored). I don't
believe I “set myself up for failure”. I don't believe I “bark up
the wrong tree”. I try, in my judgment, where it is appropriate
for me to try. I think sourceforge is the right place for me to ask
for help with GP@home. I think Skype was the right company
to ask about that business idea. I've got a lot of good ideas. I've
got some technical aptitude. But, I'm not a business manager.
I'm not a charismatic leader. I don't inspire people the way I'd

Some time ago, I wrote an essay entitled Call Me Cassandra, or

something like that. Cassandra had the curse of accurate
prophecy – but no one would believe her. Riley is right – we
ARE raping the planet and it WILL bite us in the ass. But, I've
said it before: you cannot force a mind to open – you can only
gently encourage it to open. What does Skype, Dissed Messiah,
and Cassandra have to do with GP@home? Not much – please
forgive me for meandering.

As I learn more about BOINC-server and GP/GA (genetic

programming / genetic algorithms), the more I'm convinced
that the two can be merged resulting in many-fold benefits for
humankind. GP/GA is a flexible approach toward problem
solving. In a sense, it's automated computer programming:
computer programs are “bred” and “progeny” tested against
problem-specific criteria. This happens over many
“generations” of programs. The end product is a particular
computer program that solves a particular “well defined”
problem. Dr. John Koza of Stanford is probably the strongest
and most expert advocate of GP/GA. I've tried to get him
involved in GP@home.

BOINC-server is a product of UC Berkeley. A packaged

version runs on Windows; while a more differentiated version
runs on Linux/Unix. A general description of the two versions
BOINC server via VMware:

(assuming you are running a Windows machine)

configure your virtual network
install and run VMware Player
install and run run the Debian or Ubuntu VM
create and distribute your BOINC client

BOINC server via Unix/Linux:

install any software prerequisites required by your system
enable and test them
download Syncro SVN Client from
install and run SSVN Client
add two repositories to your Client:
create two folders on your computer (preferably with the same
right click on each repository and select Export...
complete the required steps to Export from the repositories to
your local folders
visit and build
your BOINC server
probably you will want to disable client when configuring
for an overview of BOINC
(perhaps this should have been done first ;)
and this page helps:
good luck – I need it too!

I'm “sorta stuck” at the point of trying to get php (a general

purpose scripting language) to work with apache (a web server)
and boinc-server (here on my Linux machine). I can install
apache to work properly. But php does not seem to “work” here
on this computer. Scripts are listed as code – not as functioning
modules.. I've followed the installation instructions provided
by php (to work with apache), but .. I've got a LOT more to
learn or php simply won't work on this computer. I think it's the
former ;)

There are freeware SVN clients available on Linux which I

have found since writing above. And (as written above)
GP@home has been approved by sourceforge. But only a few
people have joined the corresponding Yahoo group. Right now,
I have two priorities that are more important: my new family –
and – finishing and publishing this book. Please forgive the
abrupt ending of this chapter.

14. Physics

Frame-Dragging, the Key to Unification?

Salvatore G. Micheal, Faraday Group,,

Space as an elastic medium is investigated. Frame-

dragging is reevaluated in that context. Two
experiments are proposed: one to verify frame-dragging
and the other to investigate the strain of space. Five
theoretical research areas are proposed: the elasticity
(and strain) of space, the origin of natural modes or
preferences among elementary particles, the
relationship between the strong force and gravity in that
context, the explicit relationship between
electromagnetism and this context, and the potential
salvaging of electro-weak.

Due to expansion of the Universe, space is under tension.

When a particle mutually annihilates with its anti-counterpart,
it's as if an ideal stretched string has been plucked – two
photons / e-m waves are emitted in opposite directions. Of
course, space has more qualities than just being under tension.
It has permeability and permittivity.
c2 = τ0/λ0 (1) p3
wave propagation rate squared is tension reduced by mass per
unit length
c2 = 1/μ0ε0 (2) p250
the speed of light squared is the inverse of permeability times
=> λ0 = τ0μ0ε0 (3)
So, a mass is an element of space (per unit length) under
tension (or internal pressure) subject to permeability and
permittivity. Perceptive readers should notice (3) is a clever
rewrite of E = mc2. But it's more than that – it shows that
masses are a product of the three and only three qualities of
space – elasticity, permeability, and permitttivity:
τ0 = Y(Δl/l) (4) p72
tension is linearly related to extension through Young's
modulus under the elastic limit
=> λ0 = Y0μ0ε0(Δl/l) (5)
(Page references are from Physics of Waves, Elmore and
Heald, 1969, Dover.) Research needs to be performed to
determine why there are three modes associated with protons,
electrons, and neutrinos. Perhaps the three modes are
associated with elasticity alone, combinations of each quality,
or individually. First, Y0 needs to be defined/determined such
that it is fixed for all elementary particles. Next, the following
table needs to be “filled out” for each: Extension, Magnetic
Moment, and Charge. Then, the table needs to be analyzed for
any patterns. Clearly, experimental research needs to be
performed in order to determine the first column.

Critical readers will doubt/dismiss the connection between

space and an ideal string (and the connection between space
and elongation), but recent developments indicate the analogies
have robust features. Previously, in the interest of conceptual
minimalism, I rejected the plausibility of black-holes, frame-
dragging, and gravity waves. But they actually reinforce the
analogies above. Singularities could correspond to exceeding
the elastic limit of space. Gravity waves could correspond to
“elastic waves in an extended homogeneous isotropic
medium”, p225. And frame-dragging could be evidence for
both elasticity and impedance of space.

If there's frame-dragging for massive spinning objects, then

there's an analogous relativistic-wake for massive objects
approaching the speed of light. The wake could be comprised
of a following expansion of space. It would seem this linear
drag imposes the fundamental limit on speed. So the idea of
space as a “frictionless track”, as many envision, becomes less
plausible. What about time? Dilation implies lengthening
periods or time-compression, so relativistic effects are
consistent with those near strong gravity sources. Frame-
dragging implies relativistic effects are real not virtual – as
many have claimed. Frame-dragging implies there's a quality
of space impeding masses – or – linking masses to space.

Several years ago, I proposed that inertia is a manifestation of

the extension/expansion, but I lacked the crucial insight
provided by frame-dragging. In the original proposal, a moving
mass produced a smeared expansion that lagged behind the
mass. But frame-dragging implies the opposite is true: that
space is stretched behind the leading edge of a moving mass.
The former proposal was mass dependent: a larger mass
produced a larger expansion and length-contraction was
spatially uniform (in disagreement with reality). But the current
proposal predicts length-contraction is unidirectional – co-
linear with line-of-flight – creating a “pancake” from any
object. It's strictly speed dependent. The effect appears virtual
because the object restores to normal once speed is restored to
its rest-frame. Agreeing with that would be like saying time
dilation and frame-dragging are virtual effects as well – which
is erroneous – those effects have lasting consequences: a
permanent and irreversible time-displacement – and – a
permanent twist in space (as long as rotation is maintained).

An interesting thought experiment would be to create a rotating

mass which maximizes spatial twist (for simplicity, suppose we
use the “north pole” of a spinning object as a reference point).
Compare the four following objects, all of the same mass and
composition, all with the axis of spin along the axis of
symmetry: a long thin rod, a cylinder, a sphere, and a disk.
(The cylinder and sphere have the same circumference.) The
challenge is to visualize the coupling between mass and space
– and – the appropriate projection/vantage to solve the
problem. If we think about the rod first, we realize that it
produces the least twist at its north pole because the mass-
coupling near it is so small. The next smallest frame-dragger is
the sphere – because its mass distribution, with respect to its
north pole, is less than the cylinder of same diameter. Finally,
we realize the “opposite” of the long thin rod, the large flat
disk, is the “winner” in terms of frame-dragging. It's suggested
the reader try the experiment with insulators and a small disk
shaped test mass (also an insulator) placed at the north pole of
each candidate mass. The reason for using insulators is to avoid
any potential magnetic effects of conductors. Make sure you
ground everything before spin-up; insulators can hold a static
surface charge .. Two variations of the experiment above would
be to repeat the scenario with conductors of similar density
(similar to the insulators). Then mix them. The reason for
choosing similar density material is to keep mass-coupling the
same between same shaped objects. (So, run the experiment
four times: one with insulators alone, one with conductors
alone, one with insulator candidate masses and conductive test
mass, and one with conductive candidate masses and insulator
test mass. Make sure the conductors are not magnetized.)

Back to Y0. The units of Y0 need to be newtons or newton-

meters (from (5); the LHS is in kg/m). Since newton-meters =
joules, Y0 needs to be in newtons or joules (force or energy).
Previously, I defined Y0 to be hc which is in units of joule-
meters (not exactly what we're looking for). The only place to
“borrow” units is from the extension. We could redefine
extension to be extension/meter, but that would be artificial and
somewhat equivalent to defining extension to be change-in-
length/area. Whatever we do in defining Y0 has to make sense
physically (with respect to Y0 and the extension). The basic
requirement on Y0 is that it needs to be fixed for all elementary
particles. The basic requirement on the extension is that it
needs to be measurable (if we think in terms of volume, it does
not have to be unidirectional). If we go with ∆l/area, that could
be like changing a radius of a circle – but that choice would
have to be justified intuitively and physically. Any choice of Y0
and extension would have to be similarly justified.

Let's discuss measuring the extension. (One way to think of the

extension is the expansion of space due to the presence of
mass, but this is missing the point of (5)! Mass IS the extension
constrained by the three qualities of space.) Since we cannot
make a spinning disk of protons, electrons, and neutrinos
(individually) and measure the torque on a test-disk (exerted
from frame-dragging), the best we can do presently is measure
beam deflection of two nearly crossing beams of particles. (In
making that first statement, I realized that in the heart of a
cyclotron, one might be able to create “pseudo-disks” of
electrons and protons – but measuring torque on a test-mass
would become the issue – placing a sensor in the heart of a
cyclotron is not an easy task!) In modeling the beam-crossing
point and resulting deflections, we need to “subtract out” the
electromagnetic interactions between sets of particles. I suggest
varying the nearness of the crossing beams for each set of
beams while keeping the angle between them fixed. I suggest:
{electron, electron}, {electron, proton}, {electron, neutrino},
{proton, proton}, {proton, neutrino}, and {neutrino, neutrino}
as sets. It would be nice to add sets with antiparticles, but
dealing with neutrino beams is a formidable task in itself (to
my knowledge, no one has created a neutrino beam yet). In any
case, extracting the extension from measurements will require
cleverness in perspective and experimental setup.
Again, back to Y0. After some contemplation, the choice of hc
seems inappropriate and any efforts to “make it work” are
“barking up the wrong tree”. In the RHS of (5), we've already
“encoded” c in terms of its components: permeability and
permittivity. So, it's already there in the equation (implicitly).
Let's consider h, Planck's constant, alone. The units are fairly
encouraging: joule-seconds. What about the intuitive
meaning/relevancy? ħ, h/2π, is the fundamental unit of angular
momentum. It's the magnitude of spin of photons and double
that of protons/electrons. It's not a stretch of the imagination to
describe ħ as the “energy of twist” of photons, protons, and
electrons. But what is it twisting? Perhaps this is where frame-
dragging reenters the scene. Perhaps ħ is a measure of the
twist-energy in elementary particles – the “twist of space” that
seems fundamental to elementary particles. If we can
tentatively accept that masses are units of space under
tension/pressure, then it is not a leap to say those elements
possess twist – especially when we consider frame-dragging
and the ubiquity of ħ.

Many will dismiss this paper as “mere speculation”, but the

approach above requires less “leap of faith” than required for
the 11 dimensions of string theorists. We are so “wrapped up”
in our models of the Universe that we cannot “see the forest for
the trees”. A good example of this is the following. I'd bet it's
fair to say that most physicists don't know about hydrogen in
electrostatic equilibrium. They know about the equations and
formula which describe behavior, but they don't have an
intuitive sense of “what's going on”. The reason I say this is
because they don't know the origin of the fine-structure
constant, alpha. Alpha is simply the orbital speed (αc) of an
electron in electrostatic equilibrium with the nucleus.
Simulations are typically dismissed as they “offer useful
approximations, but little direct understanding” (cover of
Turbulence, Coherent Structures, Dynamical Systems, and
Symmetry, Holmes, Lumley, and Berkooz, Cambridge, 1996).
But they can provide valuable insights such as above. The
finite-element method is a numerical method typically
employed to model stresses and strains of materials of specific
geometries. Perhaps it can be used to model attributes of
elementary particles and their interactions (from the
perspective above). Insights garnered can be used to
refine/“fix” the model above so that it completely reflects
reality. For instance, a linear relationship between stress and
strain is used because that's a convenient theoretical starting
point – as it is for many physical systems.

Around the same time as my look into inertia, I developed a

unified function describing both gravity and the strong force
(because they are both strictly attractive and can be thought of
as originating from the extension alone). But theoretical work
needs to be performed to derive G from quantum constants.
Until that's done, any such function (while they may be
interesting) will be arbitrary and artificial. Next, the fact the
electromagnetic constants, permeability and permittivity, are
“built in” (5) is conceptually nice, but Maxwell's equations
need to be derived from (5) (or a variant of (5)) explicitly.
Then, the theoretical unification between electro-weak “forces”
needs to be reevaluated to determine if it fits the framework
presented above. Admittedly, this “call to arms” is broad and
demanding, but I believe the community is “up to” the task. It
should be a collaborative effort. Even if I had the roadmap
“divinely inspired”, planted in my mind, I believe it would be
wrong of me just to hand it over to professionals. This blind
alley (our obsession with the probabilistic-reduction approach)
we find ourselves in needs to be self-corrected.

The approach above was inspired by an engineering
perspective. It should not be discarded or dismissed but
thoroughly investigated – even if it's only another blind alley.
Physics is at a self-made impasse presently – made from our
dogmatic adherence to assumptions associated with
probability-reduction. If we realize that double-slit phenomena
can be explained with a model of elementary particles as
extended 3D waves constrained by qualities of space, this
opens the door to a reasonable and fully deterministic Standard
Model – unified and integrated.

15. Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

Ten days after my wife's birthday this year, while I was in New
Zealand looking for work, we found out that she has HIV. We
don't want pity. We don't want special treatment (meaning – we
don't want anything special done for her). Of course, we will
take advantage of treatment programs available in Thailand.
And we are fortunate that a local university has a unique
treatment program designed to reduce transmission rate from
“mom” to “baby”. It happens to be experimental and free –
which fits our budget.

According to authoritative papers I've read online, without

treatment, my wife has a life expectancy of about five years.
From people she knew in her village, she confirmed that before
I read it. With treatment, it could be twenty plus. Doctors she
talked to confirmed that .. Typical of me, I created a Yahoo
group called hiv_herbal_support, but of course, no one has
joined.. There's another Yahoo group that I joined because I
had read the book years ago: HIV_Does_Not_Cause_AIDS.
The book was written by Dr. Peter Duesberg.

When I read the book, I was in qualified agreement with the

author – he made a case for his point. But.. But.. I cannot force
my wife to follow his advice on the chance he's wrong. In any
case, it's her life. If she wants treatment, that's her choice. If
she does not, again – her choice.

I agree, just like the war in Iraq, “HIV causing AIDS” has
become a political discussion. We promote some idea because
we want government backing/financing. I don't, but many
people do. If I don't make a penny off this book, I don't care.
All I want to do is open people's minds about issues that
became important to me – after I noticed the relevance.
I love my wife. She's my life. And I must confess that I was a
little disappointed that I did not test HIV-positive. Why?
Because I'm a romantic: I wanted us to “go out together”. Make
sense? I do want to take care of her “until the end” – I will take
care of her. (She just called me – very sweet ;) Sigh.. My point
above is that you must make your own judgment about HIV
and AIDS. If a treatment program can reduce the risk of HIV
transmission, from mother to baby, from 25% to less than 1%,
don't you think that's worth investigating?

I'd be curious, from a scientific viewpoint, to see how long I'd

last without treatment – if I tested HIV+. Get good rest, eat
healthy, and exercise .. how long would I last? ;)

16. The Importance of Love and Family

Would you go to jail for your son? (If he committed a crime

and was found guilty?) Would you die with your wife? (If she
had some fatal disease?) You might be surprised how many
people action “yes” and how many people action “no”. Human
beings are incredibly selfish creatures. But they can also be
incredibly giving creatures – to those they truly love and care

Ask your wife or girlfriend “Honey, if I had a fatal disease and

had only one year to live, would you spend that last year with
me?” An old girlfriend of mine answered “no”. Wow. I was
flabbergasted. I could not believe my ears. That showed me –
how unimportant I was in her life. Another old girlfriend told
me “I would die with you” (implying – if we had some fatal
disease together). But I doubt her words “rang true with her
soul” (that she could actually do that). She could not face her
mother with me (tell her mother I was her boyfriend). How
could she face death with me?

True love endures all things. It does not excuse all things. But
true love can forgive any wrong.

If a father goes to jail for his son, he does not do so –

approving of his son's wrongdoing. He does so because he
loves his son .. If I die from HIV, it's not because I
like/love/approve the man who gave my wife HIV – what he
did was wrong (knowingly or unknowingly) – it's because I
love my wife – and want to have a “normal” life with her – as
normal as we can. It's not because I want to die and shirk my
responsibilities. It's because I belong beside my wife “'till the
end”. I am her husband – in the truest and deepest sense of the
word. I belong to her. And if she dies, I die.
17. The Discipline of Prayer

Prayer may not have the power people wish it does. There may
not be some all-compassionate divinity “looking down” over us
– listening to every private secret desire we have. But, I believe
there is power in prayer itself. The potential of the human mind
and heart is limitless. And if we focus on some prayer
repeatedly – with all of our heart, in this process – we
discipline ourselves – to focus on the important things in life.
We bring into our awareness – what we care about. And I
believe it strengthens our resolve and commitment.

Impulsive prayer is short-term “quick fix”. It does not address

the “whys” of our existence. Why do we need this or that? Why
do we want her or him? To satisfy our ego? Or some transient
passion? Be careful what you pray for – you just might get
what you asked for.

Disciplined prayer focuses our awareness on what we consider

important – and it prioritizes things. When we continually
focus our minds and hearts – on what we think is important to
us, we realize (where things might have been subconscious
before) what is truly important to us. We discard things (in our
minds) that are trivial to us.

If I pray for a particular lover – to satisfy my lust – because her

body has some shape that appeals to me – or her nose is sexy,
imagine how chaotic my life would be? Every sexy girl I might
see would be in my prayers – and if those prayers are answered
to the satisfaction of the whim, we might share some short
intense passion, but what about my wife? Does that not say to
her “go ahead – find any lover you casually desire”? And more
importantly – what about her feelings? Does not this process

prove that I don't care about her at all? That my own lusts and
desires are much more important than her?

Before I met my wife, I made many mistakes. I was with other

ladies for all the wrong reasons: insecurity, loneliness, fear of
loneliness.. I also had some inclination, some desire, that I
thought I could help them. But no matter how noble the
inclination, if you don't marry for the right reasons, you're
doomed to unhappiness. For me, the only two “right reasons”
to marry someone are: true love and children.

Previous to my wife, when I was with another lady, I would

continually fantasize about another woman. What I'm trying to
say is – finally I found someone who can keep both my heart
and eyes. I don't need other ladies. I don't need the fantasy of
another woman to keep me going. My wife is everything to me
– she is my life. She is enough for me. (Way more than

What I'm trying to say, in a roundabout way, is that repeated

focused thoughts and desires can be like prayer. And a person
can waste much of their life on “prayers” that cannot be
satisfied. Try to imagine how many years I wasted in the
trap/cycle of fantasizing about another woman. True, it was a
much needed escape my mind created. But it was a drug-like
“fix” more than anything else. What a horrific waste of my life.

My wife and I have debated the concept of meeting sooner, but

even if destiny allowed, would we be ready? In the path of my
life, didn't I have to make the mistakes I made so I could be a
good husband for her? And same for her? Truly, she has taught
me how to be a good husband but.. Would I be ready for her
had I met her sooner?

Please God, help me be a good husband for my wife. Help me
provide for her and our babies as best I can. Help me keep her
lasting happiness and fulfillment – number one in my life,
heart, and mind. Please protect her; keep her safe for me.
Please help me protect and take care of her – to the best of my

18. Three Distributed Computing Projects

In my computer's “spare time” (when I'm not using it – or even

now – as I type), there are three computer programs running
“in the background” (while I use a word-processor, the “load”
on the CPU, the central processing unit, is low – so other things
can use the CPU without slowing things down noticeably). The
main controlling program is of course BOINC, but three
programs I chose, because I think they're important, run –
processing data provided by the host servers. Those host
servers have corresponding websites which are:,, and

climateprediction is a British site devoted to understanding

changes in the world climate due to greenhouse gas emissions
– humans have caused in the last century. The models are
increasingly sophisticated and accurate (one way to check
accuracy is to run the models backwards in time – comparing
with known history). Simulation, when properly applied, is an
extremely powerful tool for understanding dynamical systems.
The key phrase is “when properly applied” which means: an
appropriate math model is developed and continually checked
for accuracy and precision. Accuracy is “closeness to true”
values your model provides. Precision is the amount of error
your model will always have (every measurement has error and
every model is incomplete – in the sense it's a simplification of
a real-world system). The more sophisticated your model is, the
more parameters you have to “tune” (adjust) to run your model
accurately and precisely. The model is usually a set of
differential equations put in numerical form so that they can be
implemented in a computer program. Time is “incremented” as
“delta-t” which can be a nanosecond or millennium –
depending on the time-scale of your simulation. This choice is
extremely important in your simulation and must be justified so
that others, examining your model, will understand the
applicability. Of course, related to climateprediction and other
BOINC projects, all these considerations are hidden from the
end-user. While you're running those programs, you need not
be concerned with accuracy, precision, and delta-t. The
previous brief discussion is for those interested in
implementing their own math models on computers – or – for
those interested in how things work.

Einstein@Home is a project about detecting gravity waves. It's

fairly important in physics and should be examined if you have
any interest at all in that area. Because physics is somewhat
stalled in progress, various projects have critical impact on
current development: Einstein@Home, Gravity Probe-B, the
LHC at CERN, and various projects looking for proton decay.
The latter projects are not computer simulations – they are real
(and expensive) equipment located around the world. In fact,
Einstein@Home is not a simulation either – it's a “data
processing” project with huge amounts of information
requiring “filtering” (looking for candidate signals in noise).

WCG, the world community grid, is the host for several

distributed computing projects including FightAIDS@Home.
You can choose which projects to support and run on your
home computer. I have chosen that project for (what should be)
obvious reasons.

19. The Year 2012

Riley thinks the year 2012 will be the year when “the shit hits
the fan”. Several people agree with him. A dear family friend
thinks we deserve it – that we deserve to be hit – and hit hard. I
have a tendency to agree with her. But no amount of doom-
saying will make the end-of-the-world happen in 2012. How
many times have we heard this? First it was 1996 (because
Jesus was actually born in 4 BC – making that 2000 years
later), then it was 2000, then it was 2001,.. So the Mayan
calendar ends in 2012 – so what? Does that imply the Mayans
were ecological prophets? I don't think so..

My wife is extremely level-headed and laughs whenever I

mention Riley. If she's right and Riley's wrong, that makes him
a clever con-man preying on the fears of others. The atrocities
he talks about in his book – that we've done to each other and
the Earth (which are real) – are the “bait”. And the symbols he
sells (tickets to the mothership) – are the “hook”. There's no
hell fit for the perpetrators of those aforementioned atrocities –
just as there's no hell fit for Riley – if he's the con-man some
say he is. Personally, I would like an end to the bullshit –
whether it's from our deceptive leaders (and the conspiracy
guys who love to weave stories about them) – or – people like
Riley who mean well, but are like parasites on society.

I think the date is a little farther out anyways – something more

like 2050. So let's make this chapter about the desire for an end
to social parasites – whether they be doom-sayers or presidents.
Wow, how appropriate is that? ;) Bush tells us to be afraid of
Iraq and North Korea and uses (and sells) a lot of weapons in
the process. He uses fear to control and mobilize people. Why
are people so stupid??? Wake up America! Pull your head out

of your ass and wake the fuck up! (Oops, I'm doing it again –
ranting and raving;)

If I was Bush (I would explode – just a silly joke), I would go

to North Korea and talk with Kim Jung Il. I would get a feel for
what he wants and expects from America. Then I would talk
about what we could reasonably provide. Then I would “lay
down” some expectations for them (since so many people seem
concerned about de-nuclearizing North Korea). If they don't
comply, “we nuke your ass!” (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) I'm
obviously very against using nuclear weapons in combat or
“defense” – I feel every nation should be free to develop
nuclear weapons for defense – and if they use them
aggressively, that pretty much “deletes themselves from the
game” – in my viewpoint.

I would never be elected president because of my “nuclear

policy” (and also because of my attitude towards genetics). My
way to “disarm” would be to hand out all nukes to all nations –
evenly distribute them. At some point, there might be a limited
exchange of detonations, but I sincerely doubt it would be the
“end of the world”. I can't believe we'd be that stupid. What I
find revolting about the current situation is that the US feels
empowered to dictate to the rest of the world – who can
develop nukes – and who cannot. The fact we used two atomic
weapons against Japan shows we cannot be trusted with that
much power. And since the UN is the puppet of the US, they
can't be trusted as well. Even if we did destroy ourselves in
some nuclear holocaust, that would simply prove we hadn't
earned the right to survive (that we didn't possess the right
combination of traits enabling survival). It may sound very
bleak, but I believe somehow – life would find a way to
continue. Perhaps a better solution to the nuclear issue is to
dismantle all American nuclear weapons – and turn over all
materials to science for research. Surely, the missiles could be
used to launch peaceful payloads into orbit. Nasa and other
space ventures need launch capability. We could do a lot of
good with those resources (the plutonium in the warheads
could be used in nuclear reactors, the tritium could be used in
fusion research, and the missiles themselves could be used as
above). If Americans dismantled, that would show a powerful
“good faith” move on our part. Perhaps others would follow
suit. If they didn't immediately, eventually they would. Trust is
the most powerful message; trust is the most precious gift.

..It is left to the reader to envision different realistic “death

throe” scenarios – those that are probable for our dying Earth.
One idea is given at the end of the next chapter..

20. Holistic Gardening

When a baby grows inside his/her mom, does he/she give

anything back to her? Technically speaking, they're parasitic
because they don't. Thank God most mothers don't feel this
way. E. coli, a bacteria in our intestines, is not parasitic because
it helps our digestion. In the process, it gains nutrients –
therefore, it's symbiotic. I've been told this kind of relationship
is fairly uncommon in nature. It's unfortunate because humans
like examples before they emulate behavior. A negative way to
view a marriage is with the label “co-dependency”. A more
positive label is symbiotic. Farmers typically “fix” the soil with
nitrogen producers in a procedure called crop rotation – each
season they plant something different because some crops are
heavy nutrient users (such as corn). If you did your
“homework” in chapter 11, you decided on aqua-culture or soil
techniques and completed a design for a human supporting
ecosystem. Hopefully, you did not choose a synthetic fertilizer
based ecology (since you should have recycled human wastes
and those fertilizers end up killing the soil of helpful organisms
therefore requiring more and more each year). Whatever you
decided, you may be able to use part of that design in this and
the next chapter. That is the third and last devoted to helping
you learn how to apply the systems approach. This chapter is
the second, so “fire up” your imagination and get ready your
research skills.

A friend well versed in systems principles has researched what

I call “intensive horticulture” which is the clever placement of
various species to reinforce each other so that growth and
consumable products are increased remarkably. His name is
Hugh Lewis and he has placed much on the web to help
educate people about systems and holism. You can find his
research and publications by searching on his name.
The core of the holistic home is the human family dwelling
there but so is the garden – depending on your perspective. The
garden is where all the nutrients they need – are “built”. So use
a scaled-down version of your lunar base support ecosystem to
feed your family in this chapter. Include any animals that you
judge manageable. Of course, this garden is on Earth, so you
don't have to worry about oxygen recycling (let's hope it stays
that way). (One of the 2012 “death throe” scenarios is that our
ozone could be destroyed – allowing too much UV to the
surface – killing the phytoplankton in the oceans – which are
the major oxygen producers on the planet.) You will use the
garden design in your “dream house” - which you will design
next chapter.

21. The Holistic Home

I'm hoping this will be the funnest chapter in the book. It's best
I only give you ideas by sharing my own plus list out some
concepts you can research: composting toilets, grey-water
recycling, passive solar (such as used in northern Michigan),
Stirling engines, “swamp coolers” (used in arid hot zones),
wind turbines (expensive!), electric solar (getting cheaper!),
and straw-bale homes. Depending on location, I've oscillated
between three designs which seem to recur in my mind: the
triangular “castle” which is all cinder-block, two floors, six
rooms, and flat-roofed (so that is usable); the underground
house which is covered by a meter of soil, only has one side
facing south, is basically a half-cylinder of corrugated zinc-
coated steel, and has a basement full of rocks and boulders
which acts as a heat-sink to heat in Winter and cool in Summer;
and the “mushroom” house which is basically made from 2-by-
4s and steel straps, it is an elevated ellipsoid – a squashed
sphere with two floors and eight rooms, inside the trunk/stem is
the lift or outside is a spiral staircase, the ellipsoid frame is
geodesic, and windows are all around.

Maybe your dream house is in the side of a cliff or under water.

Maybe it floats in the air like a helium dirigible! I've tried to
design a “mile high” building with a triangular base and
flattened top – much like a spear-point, but wind-shear seems
to be the major issue. The design would have to be flexible –
like a reed blowing in the wind, but it would make people sick!
There are buildings which use a counter-weight – to
compensate for wind-shear, but these would have to be massive
(and tied to remote senses which anticipated events)! It should
be “easy” with the systems approach. In these types of
structures, it should be clear that backup systems are essential.

As with chapter 11, please submit your design to my email in
pdf format. Again, I will post those interesting and authentic
designs on an appropriate website. If you have any other
questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me via email.
As you know, I will be very busy taking care of my new family,
but will try to find time for genuine concerns. The following is
a kind of epilogue.

There should be a chapter about world government, but I'm an

advocate of pure democracy. There should be a chapter about
space ventures such as Xprize and Mars Society, but there
seems to be a lack of cooperation between them. There should
be a chapter about aircraft design (since I want to build and fly
them), but I'd rather do than talk. There should be a chapter
about matrices and systems theory, but there are many
resources for that. There should be less blabbering and
swearing in this book, but I prefer a conversational tone and
sometimes – things must be stated for what they are. I
apologize for any seeming inconsistencies. Sometimes I use
words to convey a special meaning that is not standard (an
idiom unique to me) or adjust the meaning of a word to say
something different, but I try to highlight those with quotes or
explanations. In much of the book I adopt a defensive posture
because in much of my life – various people attacked me and
my values (many were supposedly “friends” but were not) or
mocked or ridiculed me. This is standard for American life
where competition is so highly valued (where even your values
must show, at least a potential for, profit). But I refuse to raise
my son in a place where “smoking in the bathroom” (sex and
peer pressure for sex and drugs) is standard, where the word
“respect” exists (in the dictionary) – but no one understands the
true meaning, where we make a mockery of the word
“freedom”, and where truth, trust, and justice are similarly
disenfranchised. (An English teacher will tell you – you cannot
use a word like that but you can use words any way you want –
as long as your meaning is clear.)

22. Utopia-Town

..This chapter is my response to consumerism – the religion

and way of life of the modern age. I have a revulsion for it –
about as intense as my revulsion for competition. We must
have that car, that brand, that thing or person – in order to be
“cool”. That relentless compulsion to be cool, that incessant
and insipid tendency to throw away things and people we tire
of (the trademark of our “disposable society”), and our
absorption into the media – these kill us spiritually. They do it
by destroying our individuality. We are drones in a nest
controlled by the “hive mind”. And that “mind” (or
mindlessness) is controlled by corporations and government.
They use our debt and desires to control us. We feel free when
we spend money, but quit your job and see how long that
feeling lasts..

As a young man, I tried to design “the perfect town”: energy

and consumable independent – with a net surplus – to pay for
taxes and external resources when required. This “utopic
community” would satisfy every need for each member:
shelter, food, education.. And those it did not satisfy – create a
net surplus so that they could be acquired from the “outside
world” when needed.

My motivation was Plato's Republic and my dissatisfaction

with it: the hierarchical structure and the “fundamental lie”
required by Plato .. No matter how merit-based Easterners
think Western society is, our society is ultimately and implicitly
hierarchical. I am a “grunt” (part of the worker-class) and will
always be a grunt in the elites' eyes. “Fuck you!” and “May
you curse yourselves with your own egocentrism!” I say to

Anyways, “my town” has at least six doctors (one plus backup
for every shift), six nurses, enough teachers for all the town
children so that classes are less than thirteen students each, two
or three architects/engineers specializing in green construction,
the same for interior designers (part of the surplus mentioned
above could be in the form of services these designers and
engineers provide for the “outside world”), a few research
scientists with a small laboratory (this lab would serve a dual
purpose – to design symbiotic gardens and research ways to
fight disease vectors that invade our community – and to
produce designs and engineered species for the “outside
world”), two construction crews, a few maintenance
technicians, and enough farmers to create a surplus of
foodstuffs for the community – for “hard years” (those with
drought or pestilence). Every family, regardless of occupation,
would “own” the same quality home, eat the same quality
foods, and recreate in the same facilities. A farmer is just as
important as a scientist – maybe more so. A construction
worker is just as important as a teacher. Since the doctors and
engineers are “more special”, they can eat special foods and
have sex with whomever they want (this is a very small joke
aimed at the egos of doctors and engineers – please forgive
me). The point here is about collaboration: everyone in the
town needs to work together – not order each other around. The
spirit of the town is understood if you thoroughly digest this

The town would have to be initially constructed by loan, grant,

or philanthropic donation. Invitations for community members
would be sent out across the globe. Initial membership should
be competitive (please forgive the use of that “dirty word”;
decided by consensus) based on genuine explicit tolerance,
curiosity, creativity, compassion, the capacities for trust and
respect – and of course – a lasting commitment to the town.
My paranoia suggests the elite of this world would try to
sabotage such a town. There is no reason for them to support it.
The town would be purposefully financially independent. No
credit cards or money would be needed there – by members.
The town would make the elite of this world – obsolete. It
would be a symbolic threat to them and I suppose they would
do everything to avoid its completion and very existence.
Please don't let them win. Don't let them sabotage it.

..Readers are invited to join the following Yahoo group

dedicated to Utopia-Town:
Maybe we can generate enough interest within the group to
make recruitment unnecessary. But there will still be the task of

For the future of humankind, please build the town. Make it

green. Make it a lasting testament to Hope, Faith, and Trust in
the best of us. Make it for our children. Make it with Love.

Addendum 1: Old Chapter on Physics

I “wasted” several years on a project which falls into the

category called “unification physics” – culminating in several
books and papers which are basically ignored, unknown, and
considered fringe by convention. A dear associate of mine
declared that I have marginalized myself but I contend “it takes
two to tango”.

I disagree with the “giants” of physics who have declared that

we cannot comprehend quantum behavior. We can retrain our
intuitions to reflect reality.

Unfortunately, physics has “gone down a path that leads

nowhere”. For five basic reasons, physics has been lead astray.
One is that a branch of modern proponents dogmatically
pushed their “inherent indeterminism” philosophy onto the rest
(including Einstein). These early modernists essentially used
peer pressure to make the rest feel like “idiots” if they did not
subscribe to their philosophy. Later, some experiments were
misinterpreted which seemed to confirm the perspective. These
supposedly disproved “local realism” (the model of reality that
asserts even quantum behavior can be understood and modeled
deterministically). Then, Richard Feynman (considered the
most brilliant physicist since Einstein) “closed the door” on
determinism by developing his path-integral formulation of
quantum mechanics. This gave him the authority to promote
indeterminism in the form of virtual particles and space-time
foam. The Higgs boson (yet to be detected) is the
“manifestation” of the “crutch” modern physics uses to “keep it
all together”. And finally, the Casimir effect seems to confirm
it all by measuring the “vacuum force”. (Please forgive the
following extremely opinionated digression. To me, there's
good science – like the design and intention of Gravity Probe-
B. And there's bad science – like the data-analysis (better called
data-manipulation) of the same project. Another good example
of bad science are the “freeloaders” pretending to “do” science
around the Casimir effect. The first thing that should catch your
attention is the effect is only visible with metallic plates
(conductors). And repulsion is observed with insulators. That
should be a red-flag in your eyes that something else is going
on. Those that swallow indeterminism “hook, line, and sinker”
accept Casimir as “proof” of indeterminism. It seems to me the
politics of science and funding issues are really what's “going
on here”. They're grasping at straws. They sense they're on a
sinking ship and desperate to find “progress”. And it's not just
about money – there's a lot of ego tied into these issues.
Imagine the embarrassment of professors and researchers who
have endorsed concepts for years – some basing their entire
careers on them – only to find out they were all wrong! That's
why I think they'll never embrace determinism. Again, these
are only my opinions. Let's return to the discussion.)

The real culprit to blame is not Richard Feynman – or even

those early modernists. It is our infamous “friend” reduction –
who is to blame. The philosophy of reduction permeates
science and engineering to such an extent – that we
automatically think the universe operates on this principle –
from large to small. For each “force” of nature, we have
devised a “force carrying particle”: strong/gluon, weak / vector
boson, gravity/graviton, and electromagnetic/photon.

Unfortunately, for “science” (how can you call it science when

it does not operate scientifically?), these particles are
undetectable directly (with exception of the photon). And the
reason I put force in quotes above is because three of four are
not even legitimate unique forces!

Let's start with gravity. It is not a force per-se because it is
curved space-time. The weak “force” is not because it is simply
unstable nuclei – our naïve attempt to blame a particular culprit
– is just that. And the strong “force” is merely the close-range
version of gravity. The fact we have “unified”
electromagnetism with the weak “force” into “electro-weak” is
a testament to our ingenuity – not a reflection of reality.

..Of course, the problem in physics is more than just a sequence

of misunderstandings and philosophical bent toward reduction.
It is the revulsion of determinism and all its “consequences”
which impel physicists to embrace inherent indeterminism / the
probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. Physicists
are human and have a natural desire for freewill. This desire is
deep in the psyche. So when a physicist hears the word
“determinism”, it evokes all kinds of negative connotations: the
“clockwork universe”, no choice, slavery, meaninglessness,
“living death”,.. I exaggerate, but the point is made: physicists
cannot even listen to a deterministic idea – it's revolting to
them – a backwards step in the “evolution” of physics .. But it's
silly – determinism can exhibit its own “brands” of
“randomness”: chaotic systems / strange attractors, complexity,
and unknowable internal phase. There's no need to “build in”
randomness at the quantum level to have a universe with
freewill. The push toward many-worlds and multiple
dimensions is not fundamentally required – in terms of human
needs – and to explain quantum behavior..

Perhaps indeed – electrons are “multi-state” entities under

certain conditions. Or perhaps we're observing multiple states
over a combinatorial range of possibilities. Electrons in orbitals
certainly behave differently than electrons in conductors. This
baffling behavior coupled with the sequence of historical
events listed above has placed modern physics in the position
of a blind man who's trying to navigate down an unfamiliar
alley by sense of touch. It's extremely unfortunate that so many
brilliant minds have been deluded into wasting lifetimes –
pondering and researching ways to support a theory that's
essentially incorrect.

In a very roundabout way, modern physics has approached a

fair model of elementary particles. Indeed, they are much like
vibrating closed-loop strings. But we don't need eleven
dimensions to model their attributes and behavior. If we allow
two features of space: impedance and elasticity, we can explain
most (if not all) of particle behavior. Of course, the
fundamental questions: why does space have these two
qualities? And why is the mass ratio of proton/electron the
value we measure? – remain still unanswered. The last hundred
years has been exciting for physics – it seems – one
“fundamental” discovery after another. I believe the next
hundred will be just as exciting.

..In my book on physics, I predicted no detection of frame-

dragging – but at least two independent studies indicate the
effect is real. If there is frame-dragging for a massive spinning
object, then there is an analogous relativistic-wake for massive
objects approaching the speed of light. The wake could be
comprised of a leading compression and following expansion
of space. It would seem this linear drag imposes the
fundamental limit on speed. So the idea of space as a
“frictionless track”, as many envision, becomes less plausible.
What about time? The automatic conception of dilation seems
hasty especially if there is a following expansion or turbulence
(an expansion would be associated with time speeding up or
vice versa unless space and time are disparate – the opposite
we've been “preaching” for a century). If we've detected frame-
dragging, the many years of “fighting/rejecting the aether” may
have been in vain. Frame-dragging implies there's something in
space impeding masses – or – linking masses to space..

The reason for this chapter is an attempt to inspire others to

search for answers to those questions – answers that jive with
reality – within testable theories using observable models. (One
reason I don't give physicists any slack is because they are
more like a “priesthood of mysteries” than scientists. They
dogmatically adhere to one perspective, such as their
interpretation of the double-slit experiment, rather than
performing a comprehensive scientific investigation – such as
using different materials for the slit or controlling the phase of
targeting electrons.)

Addendum 2: A Second Paper on Physics

A New View of Gravity – A Distributed Compression of Time

Salvatore G. Micheal, Faraday Group,,

Y0, the elasticity of space, is defined and calculated.

Linear strain is calculated for electrons and protons. In
the process, after a few assumptions, a new relation
between temporal curvature and spatial curvature is
established. Needed work is reviewed.

From the previous paper on frame-dragging, we invented a new

relation between mass and the linear strain of space:
λ0 = Y0μ0ε0(Δl/l) (1)
mass per unit length (implicit) is linearly related to extension
through the three parameters of space: elasticity, permeability,
and permittivity

We had some trouble defining an appropriate Y0, the elasticity

of space. Recall that the basic constraint on Y0 is that it must be
consistent between elementary particles (and of course its units
must agree with the equation above). Let's make a few standard
assumptions which should not cause too much of a ruckus. Of
course, those must be verified (or at least – not disproved) – as
the consequences of those assumptions must also be verified.
Until now, we have not made the 'per unit length' explicit. Let's
do that and assign the Planck-length:
λ0/lP = Y0μ0ε0(Δl/l) (2)
This is a place to start and we'll follow a similar convention
when the need arises. Let's replace lambda with the standard
notation and move lP to the other side:
m0 = (Y0lP)μ0ε0(Δl/l) (3)
Multiply by unity (where tP is the Planck-time):
m0 = (Y0lPtP)μ0ε0(Δl/ltP) (4)
Now, the first factor on the RHS is 'where we want it' (units are
in joule-seconds). And, the fact we had to 'contort' the
extension by dividing it by the Planck-time should not prove
insurmountable to deal with later. Finally, let's assume the first
factor is equal to the magnitude of spin of electrons and
protons, ħ/2:
m0 = (ħ/2)μ0ε0(Δl/ltP) (5)
By our last assumption, Y0 = ħ/2lPtP ≈ 6.0526*1043 N. To
simplify and isolate the extension:
m0 = (ħ/2c2)(Δl/l)(1/tP) (6)
=> (Δl/l) = (2c2tP/ħ)m0 = 2(tP/ħ)E0 (7)
So, the linear strain of space due to internal stress is directly
related to rest-energy through a Planck-measure. Later, if space
allows (pun intended), we will show that (7) reduces to an even
simpler form involving only two factors. If our assumptions
hold, the numerical values for (7), for electrons and protons
respectively, are approximately:
8.3700*10-23 and 1.5368*10-19.
The values are dimensionless – per the definition of linear
strain. The meaning is: 'locally', space is expanded (linearly) by
the fractions above (assumed in each dimension). What exactly
locally means – will have to be addressed later. The numerical
value of Y0 is extremely high as expected. All this says is:
space is extremely inelastic. The numerical values for ∆l/l will
have to be investigated – perhaps as suggested in the previous

Let's deal with our assumptions first. The notions of Planck-

time and Planck-length are associated with 'minimum
measures' conventionally. Anything less is considered
physically meaningless. If there is a fundamental limit on our
precision in measuring things, we consider those to be lower
bounds. If we could make a 'meter stick' with a length of the
Planck-length or a clock that 'ticked' per Planck-time, that
would be the limit of our technology – physically imposed by
the nature of our Universe. So, to use them above is not a huge
stretch of our 'belief system'. Our first assumption, to employ
'mass per Planck-length', is not implying we assume electron
masses are actually divided into small parts of m0/lP. It simply
means that's the limit of our measuring ability – and that we
associate a linear change in space (for now) with that minimum

Conventionally, we think of m0, E0, ħ, c, and tP as fixed. If any

of them varied, that would throw physics into chaos, right? But
that is exactly what quantum mechanics has tried to cope with
since inception: the seemingly statistical variation of m0/E0
about some modal value. Fortunately for science, ħ and c do
not seem to vary statistically.

The fact we had to introduce tP above in order to simplify the

expression for extension, is only the completion of another
expression of uncertainty. That's the conventional view.
Another perspective is to view that change in space per unit
time. There are two further ways to view that: as the
propagation of the gravity wave of a newly minted particle – or
– as the locally changing extension over time. If we tentatively
adopt the latter view, this provides a natural/integrated
explanation of uncertainty. The only 'problem' is that the linear
increase in extension cannot go on forever. It must necessarily
oscillate. The simplest form of modeling that is with a saw-
tooth wave (and slope ±∆l/l). We could get a little 'fancier' and
model with a sinusoid. The critical factors are: amplitude and
wavelength. Amplitude is associated with the variation in rest-
mass/energy. Wavelength is associated with the choice of
period: Planck-time, de Broglie 'period', Compton-period, or
relativistic-period? The first appears too small (and arbitrary),
the second is not properly defined for particles at rest, the third
does not account for relativistic effects, so we are left with the
fourth. The fourth is based on the third but takes into account

For consistency with relativistic-mass, relativistic-energy is

defined as:
E = ħω = E0/γ (8)
where omega is the relativistic-angular-frequency and gamma
= sqrt(1-(v/c)2). For consistency with time-dilation, relativistic-
period must be lengthened:
T = T0/γ (9)
where T0 is the Compton-period of a particle at rest. Let's
repeat equation seven here for convenience:
(Δl/l) = (2c2tP/ħ)m0 = 2(tP/ħ)E0 (7)
If we notice that heavier particles have larger extensions
(comparing protons and electrons), we can replace every
variable above with its relativistic counterpart (let's also give
the extension a new name, X):
X = (2c2tP/ħ)m = 2(tP/ħ)E (10)
But because of (8), (10) can be rewritten:
X = 2tPω = 4πtP/Tγ2 (11)
relativistic-extension is two times the Planck-time times
relativistic-angular-frequency which is also equal to the ratio of
Planck-time to relativistic-period through a solid angle!
(gamma-squared is a scaling factor from the relation ν≡1/Tγ2.)
For particles at rest, (11) reduces to:
X0 = 4πtP/T0 (12)
extension is the ratio of Planck-time to period through a solid
You can't get much more intuitive and simpler than that!

One way to think of gravity is as curved space. Another way to

think of gravity is as curved time (only). An object in a circular
orbit (around Earth) is following a 'straight line' path (of least
action) through curved space – or – is following a path of same
temporal curvature. An object in free-fall is following a
straight-line path to the maximum of spatial curvature – or – is
following a path to the maximum of temporal curvature.
Gravity can be analyzed exclusively as a distributed
compression of time. (All trajectories can be treated as a linear
combination of those two orthogonal trajectories. They are
fundamentally different in terms of temporal curvature. All
extended objects experience a gradient on different parts of
their extension – it’s not just the ‘steepness of the hill’ which
pulls them down. In the same way, time is infinitesimally
slower on the ‘low side’ of an object in orbit. Objects move to
maximize time-dilation.)

The analysis above has shown that, with a few assumptions,

there’s an equivalence between spatial and temporal curvatures.
So, another way of looking at particles is as:
charged twists of space
and localized compressions of time.
What 'local' means still needs to be defined (not in a
tautological way) precisely. A preference needs to be
established – in viewing curvature – such that characteristics of
space-time (such as Maxwell's relations) are more easily
exhibited. Those characteristics need to be derived from (1).
The other theoretical tasks need to be performed (set in the
previous paper). The two experiments from the previous paper
need to be performed. If there is indeed a deterministic
oscillation in mass/energy/extension, that needs to be
experimentally verified. A small joke was forgotten to be
placed in the previous paper: “Don't cross the beams .. Never
cross the beams!” ;)

Addendum 3: A Third Paper on Physics

A New Uncertainty Relation for Conventional Physics

Salvatore G. Micheal, Faraday Group,,

A new uncertainty relation is derived with the following

parameters: extension of space (linear strain), time, and
Planck-time. An argument on its fundamental nature
and meaning is presented. Two related aether theories
are discussed.

For those unable to divorce themselves from probability (or

those unable to tolerate even a trial separation), the following
train of thought was doggedly pursued to its 'brilliant
conclusion' .. Near the end of the previous paper on temporal
curvature, a relation between the extension of space (a crude
measure of spatial curvature due to the presence of mass) and a
measure of temporal curvature was developed:
X = 4π(tP/T) (1)
where subscripts are omitted for clarity; extension is the ratio
of Planck-time over period through a solid angle
One expression of conventional uncertainty is:
∆ω∆t ≥ ½ (2)
uncertainty in angular-frequency times uncertainty in time is
greater than or equal to one-half
With a little algebraic manipulation, this can be rewritten:
4π(∆t/∆T) ≥ 1 (3)
Notice the form of (3) is almost the same as (1)! Now, let's
examine things from a conventional perspective. Since
extension is directly related to energy, there's some uncertainty
associated with it:
∆X = ∆[4π(tP/T)] (4)
= 4π(tP/∆T) (5)
=> ∆X∆t/tP = 4π(∆t/∆T) (6)
=> ∆X∆t/tP ≥ 1 (7)
=> ∆X∆t ≥ tP (8)
uncertainty in spatial extension due to presence of mass times
uncertainty in time is greater than or equal to Planck-time

Planck-time is the lower-bound for uncertainties in space-strain

and time. The purpose of this paper is not to 'bend to
convention' – but to present things in a way that is acceptable
to convention so that the previous papers (and any subsequent)
are not rejected out of hand.

The author prefers deterministic and non-reduction (holistic)

views of quantum behavior. I say this not out of ego but
sentiment similar to Einstein and De Broglie: our lack of full
understanding forces us to employ statistical/probability
analysis. Then we further justify that by unequivocally stating
measurable entities have some inherent uncertainties associated
with them. Of course there are errors associated with every
measurement; of course there are always limits on our
precision. The author does not argue against fundamental limits
on time and space. It is the source of those limits that I
question; it is the source of those 'inherent uncertainties' that I
need to understand.

I have a natural tendency to view things in terms of electric and

magnetic flux because those can easily be visualized. Even if a
time-varying 3D vector field is required, again, that can easily
be visualized. In physical systems – energy form, location, and
flow – are critical to understanding them. I have a natural
tendency to attempt to visualize that also. But when there are
gaps in our understanding, there are gaps in the visualizations
which automatically beg to be filled.

Gravity can be visualized in the approach above. Even
exchange of virtual particles and space-time foam can be
visualized. But that does not validate them. It should be clear
why quantum electrodynamics / quantum field theory is
distasteful to me. You cannot question the math, but you can
question the assumptions and techniques. In the first place, it's
not a holistic approach. It wasn't invented to explain gravity or
unify forces. The over-dependency on virtual particles is the
second major issue. Take that away and what are you left with?
A lattice of arcane math with questionable applicability.

What is the source of uncertainty in (8)? Is it space-time foam

or some inherent uncertainty? Is that uncertainty based on
some probability density function (which is truly random – the
conventional approach) or on some internal oscillation? Let's
examine relation (1) again:
X = 4π(tP/T) (1)
Let's rewrite it in terms of Planck-time:
XT/4π = tP (9)
∆X∆T/4π = tP from (5)
∆X∆t ≥ tP (8)
Convention would reject the second line as meaningless
without a ≥ symbol. They might accept uncertainty in
extension being inversely proportional to uncertainty in period,
but they would see the statement as incomplete without the
conventional relation (we are 'born, bred, and raised' to
acknowledge a lower bound on uncertainty). Convention might
find the first line interesting but not ascribe any deep meaning
to it. I doubt they would see the relationship between temporal
and spatial curvatures – even if a conventionalist had derived
and presented the equation. They would focus on the
assumption of internal oscillation and reject any conclusions
based on that. After all, we did not precisely define uncertainty
in energy: 'Amplitude is associated with the variation in rest-
mass/energy.' Even if we did precisely define it (we might
make an attempt later), there is the issue of validation. In any
case, the physics 'atmosphere' is extremely hostile toward
determinism and any aether-like associated proposals (a few
will be discussed below). The third line is important to
convention – if they want to unify gravity with
electromagnetism (with or without quantum field theory and
virtual particles). I'm certain that it can be derived within the
conventional framework. I'm certain that it holds fundamental

A dear associate of mine, Mayeul Arminjon, has developed a

model of space as a 'super-fluid ether'. It's intriguing, but space
behaves more like a highly elastic solid with 'strain bubbles' as
'matter waves' (G S Sandhu). But even he misses the mark in a
way: he defines elasticity to be 1/ε0 (with corresponding
inertial constant μ0). This allows him to derive Maxwell's
equations by correspondence of form (correspondence to stress
equations). That's a bit contrived to me. If he had started with a
mechanical definition of elasticity (such as in the previous
paper) and derived Maxwell from that, I'd find him more
believable. He also 'disproves' the primary postulates of special
and general relativity thereby rejecting both theories – only
later to state 'at higher velocities and corresponding high
energy interactions, adequate study and analysis of the
associated phenomenon can only be made by using the
techniques of special theory of relativity and Wave Mechanics.'
(p25, Elastic Continuum Theory of Electromagnetic Field &
Strain Bubbles), so he's a little inconsistent and tautological.
Perhaps some of his ideas can be salvaged and incorporated
into an integrated model of space-time and elementary particles
– without tautology and inconsistency.

Relation (8) will be dismissed because it was derived with
unconventional assumptions. But the associated insights are
profound and far reaching. If there's an equivalence between
spatial and temporal curvatures, gravity can be analyzed
exclusively as a distributed temporal distortion, energy can be
stored there, and this opens the door to a fully unified and
integrated model of space-time and elementary particles.