Physics or any other science based on mathematical reasoning is only ever an abstraction, a more or less valid approximation to reality, but never giving an “absolutely” true picture of if, but rather a very relative one.

It is all too obvious that the constancy of the speed of light is no more and no less than a necessity, an absolute anchor to be able to construct any kind of mathematically based physics around reality at all. There is nothing absolute in “a beam of light” or the idea of a “photon” as a repetitive pattern or element.1 apple + 1 apple = 2 applesOnce tasted, one may be sour and the other one sweet. What does that individual perception make for a universal description of apples or how interesting is the count, after all?Finiteness is but the mother of consciousness and perception. Yet reality in all its infinity, and there is nothing mystical about infinity, does not revolve around finiteness as much as a Plack Quant is but the ultimate invention of high resolution physics, yet NOT the very bottom of reality as much as there is no end to it in terms of “at what distance shall we draw a border to our universe”. It is laughable to try and “bend” “spacetime” just to then come up with the ultimate deterministic loop of “everything was, is and forever will be”.Relativity means, for example, that light or its speed is as relative to “beings” or “objects” as a perceived length or weight or any other measure of some kind. My foundation of relativity stems from the very basic understanding that, with the premises of infinity and eternity, there are no two things in the “universe” that are, were or ever will be “entirely” equal. There is not even an exact “moment” that can be defined at which to compare two objects, no “absolute” reference frame to pin down.

In short, if there were a human being as big as the milky way, then what it perceived as an “electron” in its context, would within our contextual reality be something far bigger than what we usually think of as electrons, or a “second” of its time perception would be a time period considerably longer with respect to our temporal senses.

This – in some way continuous – understanding of reality is the very foundation of relativity. Reality is not necessarily uniformly repetitive, which means that I don’t propose, know or need to know whether a nucleus to an atom is quite similar as the sun to our solar system or to what degree there are biological similarities or differences between me and the next person.

It is a simple suggestion that any wave or field needs some, maybe very specific kinds of objects which allow the “energetic impulses” describing the nature of that wave or field to propagate or to establish; just like a “good old” wave “on the surface” of a liquid or vibrating air stimulated by a loudspeaker. In some highly elaborate model, even the actions of a human being could be described by a myriad of wave functions.

I prefer not to call objects “material objects”, since I believe that all objects should rather be seen as compositions of two basic constituents, matter AND void, the latter being horribly ignored by science or simply mistaken as a vacuum or “empty space”.

Nature knows no zero.

Zero is either a turning point of opposing potentiality, an arbitrarily defined ground level in our scientific models or, when talking of size dimensions, zero is the principle of infinity applied to the very small.

True, science needs base units, elements around which to construct theories, models, measurements and understanding. Yet those basic elements themselves are indeed “universes” in their own right as, if perception allowed, I am sure they can be distinguished into an infinite amount of even smaller subsystems of elements within a totally differently perceived context.

Essentially, there are phenonemenons that merit the different names we give them, such as “electrons”, “light”, “elements”, “fields”, “forces”, “heat”, etc… yet all these things are abstractions of what there really is and only have their implied meaning and specific characteristics relative to our human perception.

There is no empty space. Reality is an infinite composition of matter AND void in motion, hence energy. In that sense, Yin Yang is a close to perfect illustration of that duality, of its motion and of the continuous presence of one in the other without having bend ones mind around religious mysticism.

If there are energetic waves or fields, such as in “radiation”, then there have to be transmitting objects that allow those energies to propagate.

Of course there is no “ether” which is fixed in “absolute space”, as there is no absolute space. Ether simply is the network of existence, the overall composition of matter and void, the undistinguishable part, where we fail to perceive objects or elements, yet they do exist, if we were able to take a closer look. I believe the borderline between matter and void infinitely evolves just as vividly represented by fractals.

If not as energetic impulses propagating in a composition of matter and void, how else should all those energy bands we perceive of the sun or the universe at large, even of what is right in front of us, reach us?

I am sure that – from a remote viewpoint – our galaxies are the very constituents of “elements” in a higher context. Indeed, apart from our existence, there is an infinite number of micro- or macro existences, which simply subsist within different aspects or contexts of the same “universe” or “space”, different in relative size to each other and, of course, in their individual composition.

A vivid phantasy might come up with the idea that aliens are not to be searched in far away regions of the universe, but rather within ourselves, as highly organised, tiny wee beings driving ourselves into existence from a single cell and some genetic code; or simply not just letting ones mind travel far and wide enough to allow their existence but rather zoom in and out on reality.

It is all too simple to decline the ancient myth of attraction and finally come to the very simple understanding, that gravitation is but the idea of an “energetic shadow” produced in-between any two objects, simply because some energetic bands are absorbed or reflected by the objects of concern and therefore a resulting “force” pushing objects together.

Maybe next time, sitting on a chair, you feel the “cosmic” pressure that puts you “down there”, instead of hidden strings that pull on you from some arbitrary gravitational centre.

why??? jerryreghunadh.wordpress.com

showing images from 2004 and 2005 ‘Pulitzer Prize – Breaking News Photography’

I have 2 suggestions for the American people:

1. point these images out to your army(’s leaders and members) as well as to your ‘enemies’
2. get yourselves together and make an effort to unseat your shameful leadership

I think the US as a nation need to learn that one leader and his small clique of single minded ensigns are neither to rule a nation, nor the world! Democracy is a process where everyone, not just leaders, not just representatives, not just voters, but everyone in societies has a say in what is right and is asked to take that responsibility.

So please learn, that you are not alone in the world and get a bit more conscious about how your economy, as much as our European, exploits less developed countries to use their resources to allow for ‘affordable prices’ and margins for their own people! When you stop that, you start taking responsibility, not just for yourself, not for your nation or it’s flag, not for ‘international alliances’ like the WTO, but for the people in the world.

And one more thing, try to keep religious concepts out of it. If either ever existed as believed by so many, you are not the spokesmen of God or Jesus. Stop to reinterpret old beliefs and start to act like responsible humans that do can overcome being egocentric and fearful (which is quite an awkward combination).

One last thing, as for me ‘terror’ is a word that should be banned from dictionaries. Even if it means a lot, it doesn’t say much and totally seems to disregard origins. Replace actions with questions and the search for answers.

No need for war.

the show with zefrank

It mostly revolves around a fun and sarcastic videocast by a guy named Ze in a format that

“is a conversation between the host and the viewers of the program”

and you’ll notice some reoccurring themes like “Sports Racers”, “The League of Awesomeness” or “Ride the Fire Eagle Danger Day” and somehow Ze has quite an affection for duckies.

To get you started, here is a recent episode on procrastination:

the show with zefrank: 02-07-07

Supported by a large fanbase the site features a wiki, a forum, a community portal called the ORG and some means to get all groupie.

You can probably get a good idea, where Ze started from when you take off with his startpage where you’ll notice that Ze has quite a relation to interactive contents, such as a sketching toy called the scribbler. Ze announced this videocast to be a one year treat to all his dear audience. If this were to be the ultimate truth then mark march 17, for it might feature the last of his shows, as hard as it is to imagine. So if you’re up for a treat, go and visit the show while it lasts.

As for me: big thumbs up for Ze! And all you Sports Racers out there, it is not too late to contribute your Power Move!

Just something I did with the remains of an infusion of shredded hawthorn seeds… well, tea you know. It had quite some plasticity to it so I started shaping. See more on flickr…

I have a hard time to understand how this is not what I have learned in school or how there could be any argument about it. As for me this is as simple as it gets with science, it’s common sense. I would be most delighted to give you mathematical proof of it. However, at this very moment I am not capable. Besides, I think it really is that ubiquitous presence of mathematics in all kinds of sciences that creates a blind spot for those scientifically inclined to realize when the thin borderline of underlying abstractions is being crossed.

Keplers law is a good approximation and was a big leap forward in understanding movements of celestial bodies. Heisenberg came up with a keen concept that made science realize how limited our perception is and how at some point there is no borderline between the observer and objects observed or shall I say, objects estimated to exist. Planck developed a concept of tiniest energetic elements called quanta, when before it had been molecules, atoms or electrons.

Even discovering myriads of particles, way smaller than the atom that most of us never saw, physicists still draw the borderline where our limited perception allows no further, either way of the scale. Infinity is the concept that we just not seem to be capable to accept, however it is the single most basic understanding that should be the first thing we learn. And some lectures later we might realize that zero is a mere abstraction, a concept that is never true when applied to a seemingly encapsulated context that reality never is.

At this moment I am living in Germany, earning my living as an “Industrial” Engineer working on digital engineering tools and methods to improve and establish manufacturing and logistics systems, most of the time using an object oriented discrete event simulation environment called ‘eM-Plant’, nowadays ‘Plant Simulation’. Does that sound interesting? Well it should. I love the job, working all conceptual and analytical and developing models and solutions, typing code when needed. Too me, it is quiet an interesting task not just to try to understand the inner structure and relations of systems, even manufacturing ones but also to model them in some computational environment in order to comprehend variations and influences, in most cases with specific targets in mind.

But, as live goes on, I will quit my job at the end of next month and move to Edinburgh, Scotland to follow my loved one, as she did, when I was offered my current job. Loads of stuff to prepare before the trip. So give some thumbs up, for things to work out well.

Whenever a market potential is identified for some offer-and-demand-system to exchange in an economical way, the political maxime these days is to liberate that system from any constraints, so it can evolve in a way where offer and demand come to an agreement that in the end is supposed to be beneficial for provider and consument in a sound balance with the political mind set for economical growth and employment.

Liberation penetrates most every economical system these days in ways where massive demand on one side is faced with incredibly large investment and capital funds on the other side which operate globally to maximize economical profit and benefit for the procurer, sometimes the consument as well and usually to a significantly lesser extend to the actual provider of the ressources that goods and services are composed of.

Todays western societies do seem to have some big blind spots, where just a minority of individuals or organisations realize a certain things and try to even out the imbalance:

1) Much of what can be called economical growth, technical progress or even scientific evolution comes along with substantial detriment for those mostly weak parts of societies that are being used to supply the goods and services that are offered and consumed in western economies which usually have the intrinsic goal to grow and prosper even more. The golden question is: Who or what is actualy providing the ressources that the goods and services on any market are composed of and who is not only allowed to use these resources but also to refuse someone else to have access to them or use them in the same way.

2) Many parts of our economical systems today do quite the contrary of liberating the market they operate in. Consumers, contractors and employees are bound to strict terms and competitors are excluded from participation due to the massive use of licensing and ownership regulations for many aspects of societies and economies that neither need nor should be allowed to be “protected”. For example, I personally do see no right nor need when it comes to patenting, copyright of what can be called “intellectual property”. No man or organization on earth came up with its brilliant (or not) contribution all on its own. As to me, every progress in mankind should be availale and usable by everyone who can access it without violating a persons or organisations health, but very well being allowed to influence their prosperity.

3) There simply are aspects in life and society where an economical market system is not suitable to accomplish the task. Democracy itself is not a system regulated by offer and demand. So how on earth can everyone be participating in creating and / or maintaing a democratic environment, a sound and human belief system, where justice is the maxime to balance interests, if every aspect is driven by liberal economics? Justice, in practice, essentially should be to provide the weak not only in a society but also internationally with the means to participate in the wellfare they warrant with the ressources they provide.

4) There are things where the international community should disallow the evolution of economical systems and (ownership) regulations that come with it. These should not only include markets for illegal goods or services but more importantly markets for goods and services that are essiential to secure not only the most fundamental human rights as defined by the international community today but also some extended ones. Things that a liberal system of offer and demand cannot, but a democratic framework could provide, to ensure that a just and sound relation of the (economically) weak towards the (economically) strong can evolve to balance the distribution and progression of welfare. That does not mean things like: “lets make it happen that everyone on earth owns a fancy car by 2050″ or “everyone on earth should have access to bred”. No, it just means that those people that actually provide the ressources (or whose country does) should benefit from this economical transit in a way they can participate in progress. Or in other words: “Stop exploitation of ressources and those who essentially provide them!” It does not mean, lets provide everyone on earth with he same sort or definition of welfare that a certain society, organisation or individual has. However, with todays imbalance in global welfare distribution, I think it is time for a considerable effort to at least grant access, relieve debts, etc…, etc… that take a more progressive stance than mere justice.

It is essential to understand that the freedom one demands for oneself inevitably cuts down the freedom of somebody else. Therefore what I call democracy can only evolve from individuals, organisations and societies that understand freedom and liberty first as the freedom and liberty of the others.

What makes me really think is, that even though I am writing this, my everyday habits in terms of my awareness as a consumer and ressource provider as well speak a totally different lanugage and that sucks big time.

As I was watching “We feed the world (Essen Global)” I was totally impressed by what Jean Ziegler had to say especially about the WTO.