# Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

Richard’s Selected Correspondence ## On Mr. Albert Einstein RICHARD: Mr. Albert Einstein (well-known for his ‘imagination is more important than knowledge’ quote) had this to say, in 1920, when reminiscing about the birth of his relativity theory in 1907: • [Mr. Albert Einstein] ‘There occurred to me the ‘glücklichste Gedanke meines Leben’, the happiest thought of my life ... for an observer falling freely from the roof of a house there exists – at least in his immediate surroundings – no gravitational field. Indeed, if the observer drops some bodies then those remain relative to him in a state of rest or uniform motion, independent of their particular chemical or physical nature (in this consideration the air resistance is, of course, ignored). The observer therefore has the right to interpret his state as ‘at rest’. [endquote; italics in the original] (page 178, ‘Subtle Is The Lord’, by Abraham Pais; ©1982 Oxford University Press). The observer (irregardless of the ... um ... the ‘right’ to subjectively interpret what is actually occurring as being a state of rest) is, of course, falling at a rate of thirty two feet per second per second because of the very gravitational field Mr. Albert Einstein somewhat solipsistically intuited/ imagined did not exist for such a person. He also intuitively/ imaginatively attributed reality to a mathematical device (‘quanta’) devised by Mr. Max Planck to solve a hypothetical problem (known as the ‘ultraviolet catastrophe’) about a perfect, and thus non-existent, black-box radiator – which statistical solution was never intended to be taken as being real until Mr. Albert Einstein appropriated it for his own purposes in his 1905 Nobel-prize-winning paper for Theoretical Physics on the photoelectric effect, wherein he explained that light consists of quanta (packets with fixed energies corresponding to certain frequencies) – and thus was quantum mechanics spawned. RICHARD: Mr. Albert Einstein (well-known for his ‘imagination is more important than knowledge’ quote) had this to say, in 1920, when reminiscing about the birth of his relativity theory in 1907: [quote] ‘There occurred to me the ‘glücklichste Gedanke meines Leben’, the happiest thought of my life ... for an observer falling freely from the roof of a house there exists – at least in his immediate surroundings – no gravitational field. Indeed, if the observer drops some bodies then those remain relative to him in a state of rest or uniform motion, independent of their particular chemical or physical nature (in this consideration the air resistance is, of course, ignored). The observer therefore has the right to interpret his state as ‘at rest’. [endquote]. The observer (irregardless of the ... um ... the ‘right’ to subjectively interpret what is actually occurring as being a state of rest) is, of course, objectively falling at a rate of thirty two feet per second per second because of the very gravitational field Mr. Albert Einstein somewhat solipsistically intuited/ imagined did not exist for such a person. RESPONDENT: ‘Objectively’ falling? RICHARD: Yes, Mr. Albert Einstein sets the scene for his gedankenexperiment (‘thought experiment’) by describing [quote] ‘an observer falling freely from the roof of a house’ [endquote] which clearly indicates that there be an (objective) human being (objectively) moving in the direction of the (objective) ground upon which the (objective) house is built due to the (objective) force of attraction for all bodies exerted by the (objective) mass of the (objective) planet known as ‘planet earth’ ... else the entire ‘thought experiment’ be but a subjective fantasy from the very beginning. RESPONDENT: From what arbitrary point in the universe do you determine the direction / velocity of anything? RICHARD: In the ‘thought experiment’ which inspired Mr. Albert Einstein’s relativity theory it could be either from the roof of the house in question, a window somewhere in the appropriate wall of that house, the ground upon which the house sits or, better yet, a viewing platform built especially for the purpose facing the house. In other words wherever the force known as gravity exists there must correspondingly be a mass from which to determine the ‘direction/ velocity of anything’ being attracted (aka ‘falling’) by that very force ... and there is nothing ‘arbitrary’ about any such mass. * RESPONDENT: From what arbitrary point in the universe do you determine the direction / velocity of anything? RICHARD: In the ‘thought experiment’ which inspired Mr. Albert Einstein’s relativity theory it could be either from the roof of the house in question, a window somewhere in the appropriate wall of that house, the ground upon which the house sits or, better yet, a viewing platform built especially for the purpose facing the house. RESPONDENT: In which case, the motion of the falling object is measured relative to a fixed position on the earth. RICHARD: Given that the house, from which roof an observer is freely falling, occupies a fixed position on the earth it is no surprise that the point from which the motion of that falling observer is measured be also a fixed position on the earth. RESPONDENT: But no point on the earth is actually fixed. RICHARD: Where is the house, from which roof an observer is freely falling, situated then (if not occupying an actually fixed position on the earth)? RESPONDENT: The earth itself is moving, relative to other bodies in space. RICHARD: Aye, and both the house, from which roof an observer is freely falling, and the point from which the motion of that falling observer is measured (plus the very force known as gravity which is occasioning what is called ‘falling’ in the first place), are moving right along with it ... actually fixed in their positions on the earth. RESPONDENT: No point anywhere is actually fixed. RICHARD: You may appreciate this quote then: • [Richard]: ‘... given space’s boundlessness, this actual universe has no ‘inside’ as there is no ‘outside’ to infinity. Therefore there is no centre (no middle) and thus, with infinity, somewhere as a place is no ‘where’ (nowhere) in particular. There is no measurement possible with infinite space, for there is no reference point (an edge) to compare against. Living on planet earth, humans measure space in comparison to the localised distance between here and there. It is this measurement that is relative, not the universe. ‘Here’ is, as a fact, anywhere in infinity. (Richard, General Correspondence, Page 9a, 23 May 2000). RESPONDENT: The motion of one object can only be measured relative to something else. RICHARD: All measurement implies comparison ... yet even so objects were falling on planet earth (being ‘in motion’, and not being ‘at rest’, for the duration of the fall) due to its gravitational field (which did not cease to exist whilst they were in motion) long before humans appeared on the scene to measure the direction/ velocity of their motion. * RESPONDENT: As I understand it, you’re saying that the observer’s subjective experience of rest or motion does not affect what is actually happening in the universe. RICHARD: No, what I am saying is that objects move in the direction of the earth, because of what goes by the name ‘gravity’, whether there be a human being present to measure their direction/ velocity or not ... it was you who introduced the subject of measurement into what was otherwise a very simple matter. Viz.: • [Respondent]: ‘‘Objectively’ falling? From what arbitrary point in the universe do you determine the direction / velocity of anything’? My comment, that objects were falling on planet earth (being ‘in motion’, and not being ‘at rest’, for the duration of the fall) due to its gravitational field (which did not cease to exist whilst they were in motion) long before humans appeared on the scene to measure the direction/ velocity of their motion, was only made so as to illustrate what ‘objectively falling’ can mean. RESPONDENT: Whether the observer perceives himself to be at rest or in motion, he is subject to whatever actual forces are operating upon him, regardless of how they seem from his vantage point. Is that so? RICHARD: This is what I am saying: Mr. Albert Einstein sets the scene, for the happiest thought in his life, by describing [quote] ‘an observer falling freely from the roof of a house’ [endquote] which clearly indicates that there be a human being moving in the direction of the earth, upon which the house is built, due to that which goes by the name ‘gravity’ (as that is what the word ‘falling’ refers to) ... yet he says that for the observer there exists – at least in their immediate surroundings – no gravitational field (even though the observer is only in motion in the first place because of the very gravitational field he then says does not exist for that observer). Perhaps if I were to put it this way: suppose a tile were to come loose from the roof of the very-same house and move in the direction of the very-same earth, upon which the house is built, in the very-same gravitational field ... would there exist for that roofing tile – at least in its immediate surroundings – no gravitational field? * RESPONDENT: What that ‘something else’ happens to be is arbitrary. RICHARD: Not so: if it were not for a mass, from which to measure ‘the motion of one object’ being attracted/ pulled (aka ‘falling’) by the force it exerts, which force is known as gravity, there would be no falling (no motion) to measure in the first place ... and there is nothing ‘arbitrary’ about any such mass, any such attraction, and any such motion it occasions. RESPONDENT: Nothing arbitrary about the mass, nor the actual interactions between masses. What is arbitrary is the observer’s location when he takes a measurement. (Again, bearing in mind that his measurement says nothing about the actual nature or cause of the motion – which remains precisely what it is, regardless of how it seems to the observer). RICHARD: As the falling observer’s location is somewhere between the roof of a house and the earth it is built upon – the mass you say there is nothing arbitrary about – why do you say that the observer’s location is arbitrary when they take a measurement whilst moving in the non-arbitrary direction of that non-arbitrary mass which is occasioning the non-arbitrary motion in the first place? Perhaps if I were to ask the obvious question: why is the observer falling if not because of that which goes by the name ‘gravity’? RESPONDENT: To take a very down-to-earth example: suppose one man is standing in a field watching the rain fall. RICHARD: If I may interject? Do you see that, when you set the scene by using the word ‘fall’, you are describing droplets of water moving from a cloud to the surface of the earth in a gravitational field? If so, do you further see that to then say that for those falling droplets of water (known as ‘rain’) there exists – at least in their immediate surroundings – no gravitational field you would not be making an observation in accord with the fact? RESPONDENT: [To take a very down-to-earth example: suppose one man is standing in a field watching the rain fall]. From his perspective, with face upturned to the sky, the rain droplets are falling perpendicular to his face. The same rain seen from a passing car travelling at high speed, would not seem to be falling straight down, it would seem to be slanting toward him at an angle approaching horizontal. In actual fact, relative to his (moving) frame of reference (the car), each droplet of rain does not merely seem to be slanting across his car at an angle, it actually is moving thus, relative to him rather than relative to the fixed position on the earth. RICHARD: A gale-force wind can deflect rain from the perpendicular to the near-horizontal ... yet in either scenario the very gravitational field which occasions rain to fall (to be in motion from a cloud to the surface of the earth) does not cease to exist just because an observer has [quote] ‘the right to interpret’ [endquote] the state of being ‘in motion’ to be a state of ‘at rest’. RESPONDENT: It seems to me you are reading solipsism into this, but there is no solipsism here as far as I can see. RICHARD: I am, of course, using the word ‘solipsism’ in its ‘self-centredness’ meaning (and not its more usual ‘the view or theory that only the self really exists or can be known’ meaning) ... as in ‘she/ he thinks the universe revolves around him/ her’. Surely it is somewhat solipsistic to intuit/ imagine that, just because one has [quote] ‘the right to interpret’ [endquote] the state of being ‘in motion’ to be a state of ‘at rest’ that it is then so in actuality? One could interpret the state of motion known as ‘falling’ as being a state of motion called ‘flying’, for instance, yet interpretation does not miraculously turn fantasy into fact ... unless one be a theoretical physicist in the hallowed halls of modern-day academia, of course, where causality is no longer applied. Viz.: www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/gallery.htm RESPONDENT: The person in the field and the person in the passing car are seeing the same rain, which is behaving precisely as it is behaving, being acted upon by precisely the same actual forces, regardless of the observers’ different experience of its motion relative to themselves. RICHARD: To say the rain is ‘behaving precisely as it is behaving’ is to say nothing (whilst appearing to say something): are the droplets of water in the vicinity of the car, just as the droplets of water in the vicinity of the field are, moving towards the surface of the earth in a gravitational field or not? RESPONDENT: The perspective of the observer does not change anything in actuality except his own experience of actuality. RICHARD: Do you realise you are saying, in effect, that Mr. Albert Einstein was not making an observation in accord with the fact – that which is so ‘in actuality’ – when he had the happiest thought in his life? What if I were to insert what the words ‘falling freely from the roof of a house’ refer to – moving freely towards the surface of the earth in a gravitational field – into the happiest thought of Mr. Albert Einstein’s life for the sake of illustration? For example.: • [example only]: ‘For an observer moving freely towards the surface of the earth in a gravitational field there exists – at least in their immediate surroundings – no gravitational field’. Put simply: if there be, in fact, no gravitational field there is no movement towards the surface of the earth to be interpreted any whichways at all. * RESPONDENT: (Of course, the arbitrariness of the fixed point of measurement says nothing whatsoever about the cause of an object’s motion. It would be absurd to say that a falling object is in fact stationary, and the earth is rushing up to meet it for reasons unknown. But that obviously isn’t what Einstein is saying. Neither is he saying that two objects that are stationary relative to each other are not actually moving relative to something else). So what’s your disagreement with Einstein? RICHARD: Simply this: an observer falling freely from the roof of a house (irregardless of the ... um ... the ‘right’ to subjectively interpret what is actually occurring as being a state of rest) is, of course, objectively in a state of motion because of the very gravitational field Mr. Albert Einstein (well-known for his ‘imagination is more important than knowledge’ quote) somewhat solipsistically intuited/ imagined did not exist for such a person. RESPONDENT: There’s nothing contradictory here, AFAICT. RICHARD: If an observer is in motion due to a gravitational field then that very gravitational field does not cease to exist just because the observer subjectively interprets their state of motion as being a state of rest and concludes there exists – at least in their immediate surroundings – no gravitational field. RESPONDENT: Whatever actual forces are operating upon and between large masses are unaffected by the observer’s frame of reference. They remain the precisely what they are, regardless of where the observer is and how he measures them. Solipsism is justified with regard to measurement of actual phenomena, relative to the observer. This is not the same as solipsistic conclusions about the actual nature of the forces operating upon and between masses, based on the observer’s subjective experience of same. (At least that’s how I understand it). RICHARD: Yet Mr. Albert Einstein went on to propose all manner of ‘solipsistic conclusions about the actual nature of the forces operating upon and between masses’ (such as proposing there be a curved ‘space-time’ so as to accommodate his subjectivity theory) ... and many otherwise intelligent peoples from many parts of the world concurred with his conclusions. * RICHARD: Perhaps the relativity theory might be more appropriately named the subjectivity theory? RESPONDENT: Aye, but with regard to measurement only. RICHARD: Oh? Why not with regard to, for instance, his curved ‘space-time’ (which, apparently, bends right back upon itself ... so much so that an observer pointing a powerful enough torch to their front will have the beam shine upon the back of their head)? It puts a whole new dimension to the expression ‘he thinks the universe revolves around him’, eh? RESPONDENT: Measurement of motion and cause of motion are completely orthogonal concepts. RICHARD: Yet Mr. Albert Einstein said that the ‘cause of motion’ – the [quote] ‘gravitational field’ [endquote] – does not exist (at least in their immediate surroundings) for an observer in motion due to the very same gravitational field as the observer has the ... um ... the ‘right’ to interpret the state of being ‘in motion’ as being a state of ‘at rest’. RESPONDENT: The very same actual phenomena yield different measurements from different frames of reference. That’s all. RICHARD: Since when has a ‘right to interpret’ been classified as a valid measurement? Perhaps a real-life situation might demonstrate: in the late fifties/ early sixties the United States Air Force conducted an operation called ‘Project Manhigh’ and on August 16, 1960, Mr. Joseph Kittinger stepped out of an open gondola, suspended beneath a helium balloon named Excelsior III, at a height of 102,800 feet (almost 20 miles away from the earth’s surface) where he was at the edge of space with 99% of the earth’s atmosphere below him. With only a five foot wide stabilising drogue deployed, so as to prevent uncontrollable spinning and tumbling in such an ultra-thin atmosphere (the centrifugal force of a flat spin, up to 200 revolutions per minute, would have rendered him unconscious), he virtually free-fell for 4 minutes 36 seconds, reaching a maximum speed of 714 miles per hour (exceeding the speed of sound) in temperatures as low as minus 94 degrees Fahrenheit. The 28-foot main parachute did not open until he reached the much thicker atmosphere at 17,500 feet and he landed safely after a 13 minute 45 second descent. When he first stepped out of the gondola, face down with arms and legs akimbo, his immediate thought was that something had gone wrong in their calculations about the extent of the effect of the gravitational field and that he would be suspended in space forever as he had absolutely no sense of speed for he could not hear any of the whooshing or whistling of the wind of his descent, so familiar from previous free-falling experiences at a lower altitude, nor see or feel any buffeting of his pressure suit. And when he flipped over and looked back at the balloon – and the space above it was black as night whilst he and it were bathed in sunshine – he initially took it to be streaking away from him at hundreds of miles per hour (whereas it had been ascending at less than ten miles an hour while he was on board) but he quickly realised that it was he who was streaking away from the balloon. In other words he (objectively) knew he was falling – moving towards the surface of the earth in a gravitational field – even though his (subjective) interpretation of what was actually occurring had been that he was suspended in space ... which objectivity was certainly justified because 13 minutes 45 seconds later he landed on the surface of the earth. As would the observer falling freely from the roof of a house in the happiest thought of Mr. Albert Einstein’s life. * RESPONDENT: In our personal correspondence, I suspected that there is a deep misunderstanding that creeps into your critique of Einstein before any of the more controversial aspects of Relativity are encountered. In my discussion with you, I was angling toward sorting that out. I haven’t sorted it out yet, but it was enough to (almost) confirm my suspicion. RICHARD: I see ... so your assessment of what I say about Mr. Albert Einstein is based on a (almost confirmed) suspicion? RESPONDENT: In our correspondence, you did not demonstrate any understanding of the simple fact that different observers record different measurements of the same motion, and that this says nothing whatsoever about the objective cause of movement. RICHARD: It did for Mr. Albert Einstein in the happiest thought of his life ... he said that the objective cause of movement did not exist for a falling observer (at least in their immediate vicinity). RESPONDENT: If we cannot get past this point, there is no hope of going any further. RICHARD: So it would seem. RESPONDENT: With this in mind, can we be as down to earth as possible? RICHARD: Whereabouts, in my e-mail discussion with you, have I ever departed from being anything other than totally down to earth? RESPONDENT: What is your absolute velocity right now? RICHARD: I will re-post the following quote from our e-mail discussion (only highlighted this time around): • [Richard]: ‘... given space’s boundlessness, this actual universe has no ‘inside’ as there is no ‘outside’ to infinity. Therefore there is no centre (no middle) and thus, with infinity, somewhere as a place is no ‘where’ (nowhere) in particular. There is no measurement possible with infinite space, for there is no reference point (an edge) to compare against. Living on planet earth, humans measure space in comparison to the localised distance between here and there. It is this measurement that is relative, not the universe. ‘Here’ is, as a fact, anywhere in infinity. [emphasis added]. (Richard, General Correspondence, Page 9a, 23 May 2000). * RESPONDENT: The ‘boneheaded’ aspect of this is that you don’t see that these are anything but objective facts. RICHARD: As I recall the only ‘objective facts’ I wrote about in that discussion were in regards to what was actually happening for (a) an observer falling from the roof of a house... and (b) objects falling long before humans were on this planet ... and (c) a roof-tile falling ... and (d) rain-drops falling ...and (e) a United States Air Force pilot falling from the edge of space. And I cannot see how writing about what actually happens is anything but being down-to-earth or sensible (let alone being somewhat more accurately described as boneheaded absolutism). Which is why I am bemused as to how it sounds otherwise to you. RESPONDENT: The reason it sounds ‘otherwise’ to me is that you cannot seem to acknowledge that there is no fixed point in space from which to measure the absolute velocity of anything. RICHARD: Perhaps, upon a re-read of what I re-posted (further above), you may care to come up with some other reason? RESPONDENT: You seem unable or unwilling to differentiate between the cause of motion and the measurement of the motion of one body relative to something else. (And this is an obstacle to further discussion before we get into the weirder aspects of relativity). RICHARD: Hmm ... have you ever wondered why it is weird? Apart from that ... what you seem to be ‘unable or unwilling’ to acknowledge is that, when an observer is falling, that which occasions the falling does not cease to exist just because the observer [quote] ‘has the right’ [endquote] to interpret the state of being ‘in motion’ as a state of being ‘at rest’. It seems to me that it was Mr. Albert Einstein who took a position. * RICHARD: What I am saying is that the ‘Big Bang’ theory (...) depends upon the summum bonum of human experience being spiritual enlightenment (a permanent ASC). It is the ASC which informs that consciousness gives rise to matter. RESPONDENT: Aha!! Thank you for clarifying where you’re coming from. I do not agree that the ‘Big Bang’ theory implies that consciousness gives rise to matter, but if you do think that, I can understand why you describe it as mysticism, and incompatible with down-to-earth experience. RICHARD: Just as a matter of interest: as I did not say that the ‘Big Bang’ theory ‘implies that consciousness gives rise to matter’ what makes you say that I think that? RESPONDENT: In the context of discussing the Big Bang theory, you said that it is the ASC which informs that consciousness gives rise to matter. By contrast, the PCE informs that matter gives rise to consciousness. The fact that you juxtaposed the Big Bang theory with both the ASC and the idea that consciousness gives rise to matter suggests that you think they are, in fact, linked. If that isn’t what you meant, what did you mean? RICHARD: Up until recently the summum bonum of human experience has been spiritual enlightenment – a permanent altered state of consciousness (ASC) that goes by many names – which informs that consciousness gives rise to matter ... thus the prevailing wisdom, derived from this revealed knowledge, is that all time and all space and all matter had a beginning. Dependent upon the culture all time and all space and all matter was either created by that which is timeless and spaceless and formless, or arose out of that which is timeless and spaceless and formless, or is a manifestation (a phenomenon) of that which is timeless and spaceless and formless, or is a dream being dreamed by that which is timeless and spaceless and formless, or whatever variation on the theme a particular culture may make of it (such as with shamanistic knowledge for example). It can be summarised as the ‘something out of nothing’ theme ... and the ‘Big Bang’ theory is but the latest variation as even a cursory glance at what more than a few theoretical physicists have to say shows that the concept of a god (by whatever name) almost invariably appears somewhere in their philosophising. Mr. Albert Einstein, well-known for his ‘God does not play dice with the universe’, is no exception. RESPONDENT: (...) As far as I’m concerned, Richard’s ‘belief’ about time having no duration is purely experiential. RICHARD: May I ask? Why do you say that Richard’s report (an account from the actual world) about time having no duration, being purely experiential, is Richard’s ‘belief’ (albeit in scare quotes)? Why not put it this way (for example): • [example only]: ‘As far as I’m concerned, Richard’s report about time having no duration is purely experiential’ [end example]. Is it because, being tautologous, it lacks impact? RESPONDENT: It has absolutely nothing to do with the way time behaves at all. RICHARD: As you began this e-mail with [quote] ‘If Einstein was ...’ [endquote] it is reasonable to assume that the manner in which Mr. Albert Einstein’s equations dictate the way time behaves is, for you, the way that time does indeed behave. RESPONDENT: I.e. It’s him, not time! RICHARD: Ha ... as Mr. Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity was born out of an insight which he described as being the happiest thought in his life – that a person falling from a roof has the right to interpret their state of motion as being a state of rest as, for them, gravity does not exist (at least not in their immediate surroundings) – there is every reason to say it is him, not time, that his theory is all about. ‘Tis not for nothing that I say the relativity theory would be better named the subjectivity theory. RESPONDENT: What do you think of the so-called Black Holes hanging around in the Universe? RICHARD: I do not think of them – except in a discussion about such things – just as I do not think of unicorns. RESPONDENT: What is the most refined form of matter, is it light, intergalactic ‘void’ or is it something else? RICHARD: Such a question has no application in actuality – terms like ‘refined’ and ‘gross’ are spiritual terms, in discussions about the fundamental nature of everything, and say more about the elitist character of spirituality than anything else – as matter can be either mass or energy without any gain or loss of quality both phases of matter are equally elementary. RESPONDENT: Does anti-matter exist as an actuality? RICHARD: No ... it is a theoretical construct. * RESPONDENT: What do you think of the so-called Black Holes hanging around in the Universe? RICHARD: I do not think of them – except in a discussion about such things – just as I do not think of unicorns. RESPONDENT: Ha-ha ... am I to understand from your analogy that these black holes have no existence? RICHARD: The Encyclopaedia Britannica has this to say: • ‘Black holes remain hypothetical, but observations suggest that such phenomena may possibly exist in the star system Cygnus X-1 and at the centre of the Galaxy’. [emphasis added]. (Encyclopaedia Britannica). RESPONDENT: I ask you this as one of the Next Generation Space Telescope objectives would be to take a better look at these black holes and if they are able to see them now, I guess that they exist. RICHARD: You may find the following to be of interest: • ‘Consider the following example: Dr. John A. Wheeler, emeritus professor of physics at Princeton University and originator of the concept of black holes, has said: ‘To me, the formation of a naked singularity is equivalent to jumping across the Gulf of Mexico. I would be willing to bet a million dollars that it can’t be done. But I can’t prove that it can’t be done’. What he is actually saying is – YOU can’t prove that black holes don’t exist, so I am free to use the concept as often as I like! It is a non-falsifiable hypothesis. When astrophysicists conjure up invisible entities, the existence of which no one can disprove (black holes, dark matter), they open themselves to accusations of being pseudo scientists. Why are invisible gnomes in my garden any less scientifically acceptable than the concept of ‘black holes’ that no one can see or measure? It should be noted that the word ‘singularity’ as used by Wheeler (above) is directly stolen from pure mathematics. In mathematics it has a precise meaning. There are various types of mathematical ‘singularities’, e.g., ‘log-canonical singularities’, ‘removable singularities’, ‘essential singularities’, ‘poles’, etc. Each of these describes the anomalous behaviour of certain terms in mathematical equations. Wheeler just kidnaps this mathematical term and transforms it into being a real world entity. People would laugh if some theoretician announced that he had discovered a ‘partial fraction expansion’ sitting in some galaxy, or a ‘Riemann integral’ located inside some globular cluster. The same ridicule should have greeted Wheeler’s announcement that he had found a ‘naked singularity’ in deep space. Recently astrophysicists have been invoking the existence of black holes at an ever increasing rate. They seem to ‘find’ them everywhere. They have become encouraged by our passive acceptance of their non-falsifiable ‘the invisible black-hole ghost did it’ explanations. They seem increasingly childlike in their enjoyment of using the zoo of invisible particles and other arcane entities they have gotten away with inventing. That this enlarging class of invisible gnomelike nonsense has long ago crossed the boundary into pseudo-science does not seem to occur to them. (https://web.archive.org/web/20050206042450/http://electric-cosmos.org/introduction.htm). RESPONDENT: Actualism states that physical matter in the form of mass and energy is all there is and as these unicorns eat a lot of it, I wondered where all that matter goes and what a black hole consists of, if not matter? RICHARD: According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica the centre of a black hole consists of a point of zero volume and infinite density called the singularity (which is ‘a point or region of infinite mass density at which space and time are infinitely distorted by gravitational forces and which is held to be the final state of matter falling into a black hole’ according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary) the details of the structure of which are calculated from Mr. Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity. Viz.: • ‘black hole: cosmic body of extremely intense gravity from which nothing, not even light, can escape. A black hole can be formed by the death of a massive star. When such a star has exhausted its internal thermonuclear fuels at the end of its life, it becomes unstable and gravitationally collapses inward upon itself. The crushing weight of constituent matter falling in from all sides compresses the dying star to a point of zero volume and infinite density called the singularity. Details of the structure of a black hole are calculated from Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity. The singularity constitutes the centre of a black hole and is hidden by the object’s ‘surface’, the event horizon. Inside the event horizon the escape velocity (i.e., the velocity required for matter to escape from the gravitational field of a cosmic object) exceeds the speed of light, so that not even rays of light can escape into space’. (Encyclopaedia Britannica). RESPONDENT: Let’s hope that matter doesn’t just disappear in the unicorn’s stomach. I’ve also heard that they like actualists baked in fine Swiss chocolate. ‘Tis only a rumour, mind you. RICHARD: Ha ... you had better watch out, spreading rumours like that, for it may very well become a factoid one day. * RESPONDENT: Fine. What is being offered for confirmation of relativity is ‘experiential evidence’ – observation – confirmation. RICHARD: You are aware that the topic under dispute is whether or not the universe is spatially infinite, temporally eternal, and materially perdurable (and not just Einsteinian relativity per se)? RESPONDENT: I was not aware that of that, no. RICHARD: Oh? Why would Einsteinian relativity be such a hot topic on this mailing list, then, if not because of my oft-repeated observation that the infinitude of the universe is directly experienced here in this actual world? Just curious. RESPONDENT: Do you say that because of your reasoning below? RICHARD: Perhaps an example may be of assistance: I first came onto the internet, in 1997, to share my discovery with my fellow human being ... and in a very short time the following exchange happened: • [Richard]: ‘Only this moment exists. This moment has no duration. This physical universe is infinite and eternal. It has no beginning and no ending ... and therefore no middle. There are no edges to this universe. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘But there are boundaries to the universe and it is finite. We can see that galaxies are speeding away from one another. We can see back in time to when the universe was just a young thing. We see that stars die while new ones are born. The universe evolves. What is infinite is eternal. What is eternal does not evolve. Therefore the universe is not infinite. However, what makes the universe possible may indeed be something of an infinite, eternal nature. (Richard, List A, No. 16, No. 1). That instance, in 1997, was but the very first of several such occasions when another would skip past my ‘only this moment exists/ this moment has no duration’ (eternity is here on earth in this actual world and not in some other dimension) observation, written as the direct experience of it is happening, and seize upon my ‘this physical universe is eternal (and infinite)’ observation so as to present mathematical proofs (abstract computations) as to why the physical moment cannot be eternal (have no duration) because the mathematical equations ‘prove’ the existence of an underlying reality (as in my co-respondent’s ‘what makes the universe possible may indeed be something of an infinite, eternal nature’ comment above) which timelessly manifests all phenomena. Mr. Victor Stenger has written a book called ‘Timeless Reality’ wherein he makes it quite clear that what he too calls the underlying reality of all time, all space, and all form (the overlying reality) is timeless. Viz.: • ‘... whether or not reality has one universe or many, it had no beginning and was not created. It neither was nor will be. It just is’. (Book Description for ‘Timeless Reality : Symmetry, Simplicity, and Multiple Universes’ by Victor J. Stenger; ©2000 Published by Prometheus Books). That clearly speaks of a beginningless and endless (aka uncreated) reality – a reality that just is – which isness may or may not have many universes (many overlying realities) manifesting as time and space and form (all phenomena) ... for example: ‘... the underlying reality of all phenomena may have no beginning and no end ...’. (From the Inside Flap of ‘Timeless Reality : Symmetry, Simplicity, and Multiple Universes’ by Victor J. Stenger; (C)2000 Published by Prometheus Books). As he elsewhere adjudges fellow theoretical physicists Mr Stephen Hawking, Mr. Roger Penrose, and Mr. Steven Weinberg, to be Platonists (thus apparently excluding himself from that classification) the parallel with eastern philosophy is virtually inescapable ... as in a uncreated underlying reality timelessly manifesting all phenomena (all time and all space and all form). And, as all this is ‘proved’ by mathematical computations, the direct experience of actuality is therefore (supposedly) invalided. * RICHARD: I only ask because the whole notion of it not being so comes out of the ‘big bang’ theory ... which is based upon the ‘expanding universe’ theory which was based upon Mr. Albert Einstein’s relativity theory ... it is, in other words, a notion drawn from a mathematical computation based upon a mathematical computation based upon a mathematical computation. RESPONDENT: Just so I am clear on this – are you saying that since the ‘big-bang’ theory is false (according to you) that also entails that relativity is false? RICHARD: As the mathematical ‘big bang’ theory proposes that there be a beginning to all time, all space, and all form – and a universe which has a beginning is not an eternal universe by any description – and as the ‘big bang’ theory is based upon the mathematical ‘expanding universe’ theory, which is itself based upon the mathematical ‘general relativity’ theory, it would appear that Mr. Albert Einstein’s relativity is indeed false if only for that reason. However, I would suggest it is false for the far more pragmatic reason it is a subjective interpretation of what actually happens. RESPONDENT: The ‘big-bang’ theory may need the theory of relativity – but I wasn’t aware that the theory of relativity needs the big-bang. RICHARD: I am not suggesting it does. RESPONDENT: Are you saying that if relativity is fact, then that implies that the ‘big-bang’ would have to be fact as well? RICHARD: I am not saying that ... those who seek to disallow the direct experience of eternity – such as in a PCE – are saying that (if they did not I would not go looking up such things in encyclopaedias and other places). RESPONDENT No. 34: Could you please explain Einstein’s statement in logical terms. RESPONDENT: Sure. Before General Theory of Relativity: Premise: Matter and space are different. Conclusion: Matter does not affect space. After General Theory of Relativity: Premise: Matter and space are related. Conclusion: Matter affects space. RICHARD: Does Mr. Albert Einstein mean that the space of the universe vanishes when all the stars and planets are removed from it ... and not local matter and space like apples and fruit bowls here on earth? If so, then immediately three points come to mind: 1. With what enormous bull-dozers and with what enormous dump-trucks shall this feat be carried out? (Or is this only an intellectual exercise in abstract thinking?) 2. Where shall all that matter (the stars and planets) be placed after it is removed from the universe? (If this is not an intellectual exercise then more space outside of the universe is required to store them ... can he demonstrate that there is a parallel universe?) 3. From what vantage point shall human beings be observing his abstract theory being empirically demonstrated? (As human beings are made of matter and all matter is removed then no one will be present to witness this ... unless human beings really are ‘not the body’ and that consciousness exists independently of matter and space). So, what is Mr. Albert Einstein’s ‘genius’ wanting to convey? He says: ‘take away matter and space vanishes as well’ ... which logically means that there is no matter and no space in existence. So, what remains? Logically: nothing remains. Now, given that ‘no matter’ is another way of saying ‘formless’ and that ‘no space’ is another way of saying ‘spaceless’ then what he is presenting in the guise of theoretical physics is the ‘Ancient Wisdom’ of the ‘formless and spaceless’ ... um ... ‘nothingness’? RESPONDENT: I think you know pretty well what the state-of-the-science is at present. RICHARD: I am a lay-person dabbling in the science as presented by the popular press ... I have no formal training or academically acquired knowledge whatsoever. From this privileged position I discern two strands of science: 1. Physical science (which properly contains ‘pure science’ and ‘applied science’) 2. Metaphysical science (which properly contains ‘science fiction’ and ‘mystical science’). RESPONDENT: Einstein died many years ago. RICHARD: Indeed he did. Mr. Albert Einstein was born in Ulm, Germany, on March 14, 1879 and died in his sleep at Princeton Hospital, USA, on April 18, 1955. However, his theories did not die with him. RESPONDENT: I watched a program on the String Theory. RICHARD: Ah, yes ... the ‘String Theory’. When I was but a youth in High School in the late 50’s and early 60’s I was taught – as fact – that the atom was the smallest piece of matter ... it was the source of all things. Then came, thick and fast, a bewildering array of particles with peculiar names and properties wherein they were sometimes matter and sometimes energy waves ... which state depended upon the human observer, apparently ... and these particles were the source of all things. And today there is this ‘String Theory’ ... a ‘string’ of energy so tiny that if one is to compare it to the size of the known universe it would be the size of a tree ... if it had form. Predictably, it is being posited as being the smallest ... um ... ‘thingamajig’ beyond which there is no smaller. And thus it, now, it is the ultimate source of all things. May I ask? Would Mr. Albert Einstein’s theory have this energy ‘string’ vanish, along with space itself, when all matter is removed from space? In other words, does this energy ‘string’ still fall within the range of matter? (Particles are, apparently, sometimes matter and sometimes energy ... a sort of ‘now it is’ and ‘now it is not’ simultaneously). If it is not considered as being matter (an energy wave is not/ has no form), then will it remain after matter – and space – vanish? Which brings in the question of time (inextricably linked by Mr. Albert Einstein with space in a ‘space-time’ continuum). I did ask in my previous post if time ceases when all matter and space vanishes ... does it? If so, and if this energy ‘string’ (not being matter) does remain, then is this energy ‘string’ (the source of all matter) ... um ... ‘timeless’? I will put the question in another way: Is there a timeless and spaceless and formless energy that ‘exists for all eternity’ that is the source of all time, all space and all matter ... according to theoretical physics? RESPONDENT: There was another one on the state of the matter and space – and nothingness – inside a black hole. RICHARD: Uh, huh ... that is the $64,000 question, is it not? What lies inside a ‘black hole’? Is it the end of everything ... or is it the passage to a parallel universe where all is bright and beautiful? * RESPONDENT No. 34: Did matter affected space before Einstein was born? RESPONDENT: Yes, it did. In the same way that apples fell on the ground before Newton. RICHARD: Apparently Einsteinium physics (relative time and relative space) co-exists with Newtonian physics (absolute time and absolute space) ... a sort of ‘is’ and ‘is not’ simultaneously. This is all starting to sound familiar. Given that Mr. Albert Einstein proposes that space and time are inextricably linked in a ‘space-time’ continuum, when space vanishes upon removing all matter from it, according to Mr. Albert Einstein’s brilliant mind, time must cease to exist too. If so, then what he now has, logically, is a ‘formless and timeless and spaceless nothingness’ wherein human beings have no actual existence as a flesh and blood body. Thus, apart from the unanswered question of consciousness-without-a-body, is this not unlike a description of the Nirvanic ‘Sunyata’? But, then again, he is reported as saying: ‘The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion (...) if there’s any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism ...’ (http://stripe.colorado.edu/~judy/einstein/god.html) Maybe he meant ‘the science of the future will be a cosmic religion ... if there is any science that would cope with the religious needs it will be General Relativity’? It would all be an hilarious joke if only it were not taken so seriously ... I notice that NASA has appropriated millions of dollars with the notion of sending space-ships through ‘worm-holes in the space-time continuum’ ... if only they can find one existing somewhere else than in the fantasy-driven world of higher mathematics dreamed up in the halls of academia. Meanwhile, all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides continue unabated for want of funding into an investigation of what causes malice and sorrow in human beings in the first place. And to think that all this while Mr. Joseph LeDoux has been hot on the trail of empirically finding this cause. Viz.: KONRAD: Einstein was once asked whether he was able to explain his general relativity as simple as possible. He said, that the essence was that classical physicists believed, that if you remove all matter from the universe, you are left with space, devoid of matter. But according to general relativity when you remove all matter from space, then space itself has disappeared, too. The same relation exists between thought and consciousness. I have discovered, that if all thoughts are removed from consciousness, then consciousness itself has disappeared too. Apparently consciousness requires thoughts in order to exist, in the same way as space requires matter in order to exist. Without matter no space; without thoughts no consciousness. RICHARD: The only problem with Mr. Albert Einstein’s theory is that it is just that ... a theory. You cannot ‘remove all matter from space’ no matter how many bull-dozers and dump-trucks you bring into action. Where would you put all that matter? Dump it somewhere outside of the universe? There must be an ‘outside’ for Mr. Albert Einstein to even think up this nonsense ... more abstract hypothesising once again. KONRAD: You calling this vision nonsense only betrays that you are not able to think in the abstract, or understand that the abstract has very real consequences. E = mc^2 is the basic equation of the atomic bomb. This abstract formula has caused the very concrete destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And it caused the very concrete other atomic explosions that have taken place since then. RICHARD: As I understand it, it was Mr. Neils Bohr’s understanding of the atomic nucleus, which he likened to a liquid droplet, that was a key step in the understanding of many nuclear processes, and not Mr. Albert Einstein’s famous equation. In particular, in 1939 Mr. Neils Bohr’s formulations played an essential part in the understanding of the splitting of a heavy nucleus into two parts, almost equal in mass, with the release of a tremendous amount of energy ... thus nuclear fission. In fact, in 1943 Mr. Neils Bohr and one of his sons, Mr. Aage Bohr took part in the projects for making a nuclear fission bomb. They worked in England for several months and then moved to Los Alamos in the USA with a British research team. Mr. Albert Einstein greatly admired Mr. Neils Bohr’s early work, referring to it as ‘the highest form of musicality in the sphere of thought’, but he never accepted Mr. Neils Bohr’s claim that quantum mechanics was the ‘rational generalisation of classical physics’ demanded for the understanding of atomic phenomena. They discussed the fundamental questions of physics on a number of occasions, sometimes brought together by a close mutual friend, Mr. Paul Ehrenfest, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Leiden ... but they never came to basic agreement. Be that as it may ... the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were killed by applied physics and not abstract concepts. Mr. Albert Einstein’s famous concept is yet to be demonstrated ... let alone used. It remains – like most of his theories – conceptual in nature and not established in fact. His concept of curved space-time, for example, is still only a mathematical formulation ... and unable to be demonstrated. KONRAD: The question is not whether such a scheme like removing all matter can be practically done, but whether this hypothesis can cause predictions of phenomena formerly thought to be unrelated. And indeed it does. The basic equation of Einstein’s general relativity G = 8 Pi T, states that all of space, (spacetime) represented by G is connected with all of the energy T (stress-energy) through this equation. This equation then explained a connection between the perihelic motion of Mercury, the red shift of heavy stars, and the fact that clocks run more slowly when the gravitational field is more intense. Predictions that were all quantitatively vindicated. Consider also this: concretely speaking it is incomprehensible that the colour of light can be connected with motions of planets, and those two things can be connected to running clocks, and still this equation says that these phenomena ARE connected. Not only that, this equation even says something quantitatively about it, and this is then indeed found, this equation is therefore proved as good as anything can be proved in physics. RICHARD: Aye ... well said: ‘as good as anything that can be proved in physics’. There are as many theories expressly contradicting the above as there is supporting it. Physicists just do not know these things for certain ... they are experimental models only (and the more honest physicists state this clearly). KONRAD: In other words, that these things are connected in the way that Einstein says is 100% certain. But then his statement about the connection between all space and all energy is also 100% certain. RICHARD: Only if you say so, Konrad ... you obviously believe in him like many physicists do. Believing in Mr. Albert Einstein amounts to a religious-like certitude for the faithful. * For more information see www.actualfreedom.com.au/sundry/factsandgroupthink/einstein.htm RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE INDEX RICHARD’S HOME PAGE The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one. Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997- . All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity