First Chapter for Free

I. What is Pure Science?

Chapter one of Pure Science and the Natural Laws of the Universe

1. Definition and Overview of “Pure Science”

This book, “Pure Science” is about stepping back and taking a fresh look at scientific concepts of our day without the influences of political, religious, and anti-religious bias.

It uses the theory of evolution as an example of folklore-science that has needed to be reexamined without bias influences. The theory of evolution is leftover thought from a racist culture of days gone by. It was based on circumstantial evidence, and after 160 years of trying to validate it, it is still based on circumstantial evidence but clung to with religious fervor.

  • Circumstantial Evidence: weak guessing based on appearance without knowing all of the facts.

If you look at it strictly from a technical perspective, genetics is proof enough that the theory of evolution is not correct. Since the theory of evolution has great atheism value, leaning on circumstantial evidence will continue until the science community comes to realize that atheism is a legitimate source of bias that is keeping real truths of the universe from becoming known.

Recently, scientists are leaning towards the prospect of ape and man having a common ancestor rather than seeing it as mankind evolving directly from ape. One way or another, it is still conjecture that claims that species spontaneously evolve into other species.

In this book it will be shown that species do not naturally evolve into new kinds of species of any sort. This includes all forms of life. There is no such thing as a new species that has evolved naturally from an older species.

There can be new breeds of a species develop within a species but there cannot be new species evolving from preexisting species. This is a natural law of the universe that is not being recognized.   

If you look at it strictly from a technical perspective, genetics is proof enough that the theory of evolution is not correct. Since the theory of evolution has great atheism value, leaning on circumstantial evidence will continue until the science community comes to realize that atheism is a legitimate source of bias that is keeping real truths of the universe from becoming known.

Recently, scientists are leaning towards the prospect of ape and man having common ancestors rather than seeing it as mankind evolving directly from ape. One way or another, it is still conjecture that claims that species spontaneously evolve into other species.

In this book it will be shown that species do not naturally evolve into new kinds of species of any sort. This includes all forms of life. There is no such thing as a new species that has evolved naturally from an older species.

There can be new breeds of a species develop within a species but there cannot be new species evolving from preexisting species. This is a natural law of the universe that is not being recognized.   

I will be using the concept of man evolving from ape as an example of folklore science. We have been subjected to the theory’s teachings for 160 years and tweaking it to the “common ancestor” concept does not validate it in the least bit. It is the claim that old species can evolve into new species that is wrong.

Without it being said, the theory of evolution implies that black people are less evolved from ape than white people; or similarly, evolved less from a common ancestor than white people.

For decades modern day science has suggested that the evolving of ape to man occurred in Africa, the home of the great apes and the black people. In a technical sense, this means that all who believe in the theory of evolution are racists. Whether evolving from ape or a common ancestor, it is still racist.

In today’s world where racism is such a hot bed issue, it seems suspiciously odd that such a racist concept as the theory of evolution would be given a free pass without being adequately vetted.

This is indicative of a confused society that preaches against racial bias at the same time it teaches racial superiority via the folklore science we know as “evolution.” With the theory part of it having been removed, it is being referred to and talked about as if it is legitimately scientific fact.    

Einstein, probably the most revered scientist of all time, did not believe in the theory of evolution because it is not in harmony with the natural laws of the universe. This book identifies basic natural laws of the universe and uses them to explain the intricacies of our physical existence.

Einstein would often mention the natural laws of the universe, and sought to define them within a single unified theory of natural law.

Currently, in schools it is being taught that Einstein, towards the end of his life, failed to accomplish what he was trying to prove. “Failed” is not a good word for defining his endeavors towards the end of his career. More accurately, he was on the right track and actually succeeded at coming across a truth that needs to be talked about but is not ever being mentioned.

It will be covered in more detail later on in this book. What he did discover has been confirmed. No one as far as I can see, is giving it any attention.

2. Disharmony between Fields of Science

In Einstein’s day there was a lack of congruency or harmony, between the sciences and he correctly believed that all of the sciences needed to be defined in one harmonious explanation of the universe. He called it Harmony of Natural Law.

This harmony between sciences did not exist in his day and still does not exist in our more modern times. The theory of evolution verses the science of genetics serves as a good example of the disharmony Einstein was concerned about.

At the end of his life’s work, Einstein was working on the derivation of a theorem similar to E=mC2 that would link the physical characteristics of electromagnetism to that of gravity. This was important to him because he felt it was imperative to establish congruency between the sciences.

  • Electromagnetism: The Science dealing with the charged Particles within atoms, namely; electrons, protons, and neutrons.

Besides the theory of evolution vs genetics example, another modern-day example of sciences being out of harmony with one another is the basic physicality of the Earth’s underground. There is a multiplicity of opinions regarding the physical characteristics of the earth’s underground; and how it was formed during the initial creation of the earth.

In regards to the source of magma, which occasionally comes to the surface and then becomes referred to as volcanic lava, there are conflicting views which serve as a typical example of the disconnect between specific disciplines in the world of scientific research.

The oceanographers and tectonic plate scientists claim that the earth just beneath the continental shelves is an ocean of molten magma that the tectonic plates are floating upon. It kind of makes sense, because most of the world’s volcanoes are around the outer edges of the Pacific Rim where magma can leak out from under the Pacific Tectonic Plate.

  • Tectonic Plate: A large section of the earth’s solid surface that is separate from other tectonic plates and acts as one solid section of the earth’s surface. The surface of the earth is divided up into several independent tectonic plates.   

Below is a sketch of the western end of the Pacific Tectonic Plate which is the largest tectonic plate in the world and stretches nearly the whole width of the Pacific Ocean which is the largest ocean in the world. This plate stretches from off the cost of California to nearly as far as Japan.

Here is a sketch of the oceanographers and tectonic plate scientist’s version of the source of magma coming from the underground: 

The Marianas Trench, located as labeled in the above sketch, is the deepest part of all the oceans on earth and is east of Japan. Much profound research went into confirming that the Pacific Tectonic Plate is moving about 2 to 3 inches a year in a westward direction.

Solid evidence has been recorded that confirms that the Marianas Trench was formed by the Pacific Plate sliding under the Asian plates on the western side of the Pacific Ocean as illustrated in the above graphic.

As mentioned, most of the earth’s volcanoes are located around the edges of the Pacific tectonic plate. It is understandable as to why it is easy to assume that volcanoes are formed by magma leaking up from below through cracks around the edges of the tectonic plates.

There are others who see the source of molten magma differently. NASA and its associated scientists along with seismologists, and other types of scientists, look at the outer core of the Earth’s underground as the source of magma which flows to the surface to form volcanoes through 1750 mile long conduits as shown here in the next graphic.

As you can see, these two concepts are remarkably different but one is just as official as the other. There are reasons for believing both of these concepts but they are derived by scientists of different disciplines who see it from separate vantage points.

Einstein witnessed this same sort of disconnect between the sciences. He advocated tighter communications between the sciences in order to establish an overall unity of explanations regarding the intricacies of our physical existence. Showing a mathematical connection between electromagnetism and gravity would certainly have been a big step in that direction.

This illustrates that Einstein was attempting to do what really needed to be accomplished. He was on track, but the rest of the scientific community predominantly strayed away from his advocacy and has became overly engrossed in their own narrow endeavors without enough of a concern for the correctness of the overall picture. 

Along these same lines, Professor Don L. Anderson of our own times, 1933-2014, expressed the same concern about the varieties of these disconnects. Professor Anderson studied rock formations and how they relate to the creation of the earth.

Here is a quote from his book entitled, “Theory of the Earth” by Don L. Anderson:

  • The maturing of the Earth sciences has led to fragmentations into subdisciplines which speak imperfectly to one another. Some of these subdisciplines are field geology, Petrology, mineralogy, geochemistry, geodesy and seismology, and these in turn are split into even finer units. … The practitioners in each of these fields tend to view the Earth in a completely different way. … Even where there is cross-talk among disciplines, it is usually as noisy as static. Too often, one discipline’s unproven assumptions or dogmas are treated as firm boundary conditions for a theoretician in a slightly overlapping area. …

Anderson goes on to say, “Examples abound…” and he includes an example of how seismologist’s interpretation of their data could be well served by the input of mineralogist findings. More of this sort of cross-talk input between disciplines is sorely needed.

3. Alternative Perspective on the Source of Magma

Anderson’s list of disciplines does not specifically include Thermodynamics. From the perspective of applying thermodynamic principles to the two most popular concepts as to the source of magma mentioned above, mathematically, neither of these two models are validated but disproven as likely sources of molten magma.

  • Thermodynamics: the science of heat as a form of energy and the amount of work that can be done with it; the dynamics of heated substances; and in general, the mathematical relationships between heat and other forms of energy.

Regarding the thermodynamic systems of the earth’s heating and cooling pattern, there is a cyclical pattern of heating and cooling, there is going to be a general mean temperature that the thermodynamic system hovers around.

In general the sun, day by day, delivers the same amount of energy to the earth’s sunny side. On the shady side of the earth the super cold outer space temperatures out a ways from the earth, can be as cold as -350O F and colder.

As the earth rotates around its axis on a daily bases, half of the time it is warming up and the other half of the time it is cooling off. Via various mathematical methods, math is showing this mean temperature inside of the earth is in the range of 42o to 45o F.

For example, if the oceans are recognized as heat sinks of 34o F and the average temperature of the land mass surfaces is 60o F, the mean temperature of the earth’s interior calculates out to be around 43o F. Knowing that the ratio of landmass surface area vs ocean surface area is approximately 1/3 land and 3/4 ocean, the following math can be used to calculate the natural interior temperature of the earth:

Notice how simple it can be. This is a very simple concept and simple calculation that doesn’t boggle the mind with strange words, complicated mathematics, and with explanations that don’t make good sense. This math is saying the temperature of the earth’s interior is 43O F. This is true for a significant section of the earth’s crust.

Throughout the history of the earth, the average temperatures of the land masses have fluctuated some. For example, during the dinosaur and rainforest era the average x. temperature of the land masses was warmer. During the ice age the average temperature of the land masses was cooler than they are now. Nowadays the average temperature of the surfaces of the land masses is about 60o F.

The underwater temperatures of the oceans have always remained steadily at 34o F year round because the underwater pressure of the oceans is extreme and won’t allow water to expand. Water needs to expand when it freezes and likewise it needs to expand when it is heated.

As a result the underwater temperatures of large bodies of water remain the same because the intense pressure won’t let water expand. Water freezes at 32o F which is 2o less than its consistent temperature of 34o F.

Molten magma temperatures have been estimated to be in the range of 1300o to 2400o F. Regarding deep sources of magma inside the earth; it is too cool to expect dominatingly enormous sections of the earth’s interior to be at 1300o to 2400o F temperatures for millions of years.

Initially, millions of years ago, the earth was totally molten. Once it was established in orbit and into its daily heating and cooling cycle it lost heat at a faster rate until the interior’s mean temperature was established by its daily heating and cooling cycle.

Most modernday models of the earth’s inner temperatures include the assumption that much of the earth’s inner heat energy is left over from the time when the earth was still in its molten state. Both by common sense reasoning and heat transfer math, it seems reasonable to assume that after millions of years the interior of the earth would have been cooled off by now.

This book Pure Science and the Natural laws of the Universe is the first of six volumes of this Z-Series of write-ups. The second one, which is about half written at the time of this printing, is entitled, Pure Science and the Origin of the Earth.

This next book includes illustrations on how structural anomalies in the Earth’s underground collect heat from their surroundings a little at a time and can build up enough heat to melt the ground within these structural anomalies.

The math shows that these underground chambers can range from constantly active to taking thousands of years to build up enough heat in order to suddenly erupt into active volcanoes. The math is based on: 1. The total volume of the inside of the chamber; 2. The density of the inside material; and 3. The temperature and density of the super dense surroundings.

This is an accurate representation of the actual behavior of real volcanoes. There can be two volcanoes side by side. Both can be dormant for long periods of time without showing any signs of activity.

Without warning one of the two can become. active without the other showing any signs of activity. This means that the two volcanoes are connected to two different heat collecting chambers that collect heat at different rates.

Collecting the amount of heat needed to cause volcanic activity to occur is a function of time. The two neighboring volcanoes are on different time tables because one’s magma chamber collects heat quicker than the other’s.

In the case of the magma leaking out around the edges of the Pacific Plate known as the Pacific Rim, the leaking out concept is not in harmony with the principles of thermodynamics and out of sync with climate data such as the year round average temperature of the Earth’s surface and the mean temperature of its interior.

However, the localized generation of magma in heatcollecting magma chambers as has been described, is congruent with tectonic plate data, climate data, and thermodynamic calculations; because it is localized and not construed as enormous overall sections of the earth’s underground.

Structural anomalies can be created by massive sections of solid rock rubbing up against other massive sections of rock. Within the crust of the earth there are areas of unevenness in the density of rock, and even cavities left in place surrounded by dense volumes of solid rock. Such easily become sources of magma.

There are types of geologists who recognize that there are localized hot spots conducive to creating gem stones formed in locations of extreme heat and extreme pressures. Around the perimeters of these structural anomalies the pressure of the surroundings is intense while the insides of the anomalies are less dense but extremely hot, which makes for the perfect conditions for creating gem stones.     

For example, in the chart illustrating the western end of the Pacific Plate where the plate is sliding under its neighboring plate, there are structural anomalies shown between the plates that collect heat and eventually collect enough heat to cause eruption into active volcanoes in order to relieve the pressure within the structural anomalies.

As explained, structural Anomalies are less dense areas of the Earth’s underground that collect heat from its surroundings. Heat is under duress within the super dense areas of mass in the earth’s underground and collects itself in the less dense structural anomalies.

“Heat under duress;” means that it is extremely difficult for heat to exist in super dense materials. Compare it to holding your thumb over the end of a garden hose to cause the water to spray faster out of the end of the hose. The water pressure is higher inside the hose than outside the hose even though there might be more water outside the hose.

In the case of the earth’s underground though, it is a heat pressure phenomenon. In the case of structural anomalies, the heat pressure is greater outside the anomalies than inside the anomalies even though the temperature inside of the anomalies is higher than its surroundings.

The temperature of most of the earth’s land surfaces fluctuate with the changing of the seasons. The deeper you go down in the ground the more even keel the temperature becomes and reflects the average ground temperature at that particular spot on earth. All of the average climatical spots on earth add up to being in the range of 60o F.

In deep underground mines the temperature is a steady 43o F year round. Does this temperature look familiar? We just calculated it above. However, in super deep mines the temperature tends to start getting unbearably hot.

The same thing happens with super deep holes that are drilled miles deep into the surface of the earth. Roughly, it has been estimated that drilling a 6 mile deep hole will result in the temperature at the bottom of the hole as being around 800o F.

It makes it easy to assume that “it’s hot down there.” However, that is not the case. It is actually a matter of creating a structural anomaly that collects heat from its super dense surroundings. This will be covered in more detail in the next volume of this series of books. It has much to say about the origin of the earth.    

Another problem with the two most popular versions of the source of magma is that it is assumed that the source of magma in the underground is super dense molten magma. Both, the Mantle and Outer Core are in the parts of the underground that are denser than diamond. Diamond is among the densest materials that man has been able to directly examine in person.

Diamond is as dense as the bottom region of earth’s crust. Everything below the crust of the earth is denser than diamond, including the outer core.

Apparently, since the outer core is less dense than both the mantle and the inner core, the outer core is assumed to me molten magma. However, it is still denser than diamond and is too dense to be molten.

The outer core is less dense than both the mantle and the inner core, because of the cooling off pattern of the earth back in the time when the earth cooled off from being totally molten to converting to being in its current state of mostly solid rock.

This same sort of cooling-off pattern shows up in the manufacturing of plastic injection molded parts, cast-iron parts, cast-aluminum parts, and other such manufacturing processes. This is also covered in more detail in the 2nd volume of this series of books. This cast iron part shown below is a hypothetical section of a cast-iron part belonging to a pipeline valve:

The outer core of the earth is less dense than its surroundings but is still too dense to be molten. It is denser than diamond. It would have to be several times less dense than it is in order to be in its liquid state. Though less dense than its surroundings, it is still in its solid state, like the less dense section of the cast iron part shown above.

Closer to the surface of the earth, these structural anomalies are in the form of less dense rock than their surroundings. Heat is drawn away from the denser rock and into the less dense rock inside the chambers. But in this case, the density inside the anomalies is slight enough for the rock to become molten.    

The point being stressed here is that though there is much worthwhile research being accomplished, it is without the solidifying of conclusions into an acceptable degree of congruency between fields of endeavor. In this case the insertion of the heat-collecting-chambers concept has, in my view, been shown to be in harmony with a multiplicity of sciences. Most importantly to me is that the thermo and heat transfer mathematics is working out in a way that makes good sense of it all.

All of the pieces of the puzzle are fitting together, and the overall picture is looking right. The two most popular versions of the source of magma do not make good sense.

4. The Realities of Folklore Science

Conceptual discrepancies between various disciplines are indicative of the presence of inaccuracies in the world of scientific conclusions that are being made. If everything science came out with was accurate, there would be none of these discrepancies such as the two versions of magma sources, and the disharmony between genetics and the theory of evolution. 

Part of the problem is that scientists can form a hypothesis and society will grab it and treat it like the latest and greatest advancement in science and technology. Too often it gets passed on for generations without being adequately verified. In this book this phenomenon is being referred to as folklore science.

Throughout history, folklore science is the product of misunderstandings of days gone by. The story behind bloodletting and the history of the barbershop pole is an interesting example of folklore science that originated from the misunderstandings of a past era. Bloodletting practices led to the familiar barbershop pole design.

Though “Bloodletting” has various definitions. The medical one is where a portion of the patient’s blood is drained from the body for therapeutic reasons.

In days gone by, bloodletting was practiced extensively as the latest and greatest of medical technology. Since then, it has been replaced with more modern medical techniques, and besides specialty cases; it has become a thing of the past.

During the cowpoke days and settlement of the American wild-west, bloodletting was a common practice.  

Imagine it is 1870 and you are a cowpoke traveling on your horse and riding into a small western town. You look about you to locate the barbershop because you want to get a haircut, a shave, and have a bit of bloodletting therapy. Though there are no signs posted on the shops about town, you spot the barbershop right away by the looks of the hitching post out in front of it.

Since barbers were the ones in town who had the sharp instruments suited for cutting hair and the like, they were also called upon to use their sharp instruments for performing bloodletting procedures. 

Since there was not any indoor plumbing in the western towns yet, wastewater and the like was tossed out the front door and into the street. The bloodletting waste stained the hitching posts out in front of the barbershops and made it easy to spot their locations.

As western towns became more sophisticated with plumbing systems in place, the barbershop hitching post was converted to a vertical red and white spiral design which became a common and traditional way of marking the location of barbershops.   

The practicing of bloodletting diminished with the advent of more modern medical practices.  Usually this is the case. Folklore technical concepts are replaced with more modern ones as society makes gains in technical knowledge.

Similar to bloodletting, the origin of the theory of evolution was also a product of its time.  Charles Darwin of Britain, the architect of the theory of evolution lived his life and did his naturalist research during the tail end of the British transatlantic slave trade era. This indicates that the theory of evolution was a product of the racist culture of his day.

This culture justified using Africans as slaves because they were regarded as a lower brand of human than members of their own race. Initially, Darwin started doing the bulk of his research in South America where he searched for fossilized bones to use as evidence to support his hypothesis.

Technically, the mindset behind Darwin’s hypothesis was in line with the culture of his day.

  • Hypothesis: A guess made for the sake of argument.

All of the specifics of societal conflicts hinge off of these basic sources of human conflict. Here is a graphic that illustrates the dynamics of these foundational sources of societal conflict:

The main thrust behind Darwin’s research was in the form of finding and studying fossils of ancient forms of life. Fossils are not preserved remnants of life but are petrified and carbonized remnants of life.

For example, the notion that Asians are less evolved from ape than whites, and blacks are less evolved from ape than both Asians and whites could easily have been fostered by the racial sentiments of his day. His “hypothesis” was the backbone of his research and established the core of his writings.

For the past 160 years the theory of evolution has not been verified, but is still based on the same kind of circumstantial evidence in our day as it was back in Darwin’s slave culture days.

Both the theory of evolution and bloodletting are folklore sciences of their day. The difference is that we as a society have moved past bloodletting but the theory of evolution is still with us. If evolution was scientifically verified that would be fine and we would need to deal with it as a reality. This book though, delves into the reality of its lack of verification in fine detail in terms of unbiased technical analysis.

The difference in longevity of these two folklore concepts can be attributed to the theory of evolution having atheism value as opposed to bloodletting which does not. It could be surmised that if bloodletting had any degree of atheism and/or agnostic value, it would still be with us also.

5. Overall Sources of Biased Science

Folklore is not the only source of inaccurate scientific concepts and other forms of misinformation. One of the most potent and common sources of misconceived scientific concepts is “biased science” influenced by personal beliefs.

These sources of biased science are the same as the sources of societal disharmony, namely: (1) Politics, (2) Religion, and (3) Anti-religion.

These same basic questions have been at the foundation of human strife from the beginning of the existence of mankind on earth:

  • God? – Is mankind to recognize that there is a god and if so, what are the specifics of God’s nature and what are the rules of worship?
  • Free Agency? – Is mankind meant to be free to determine their own lives, and live as they choose; if so, what is the extent and boundaries of their permitted freedoms?

All of the specifics of societal conflicts hinge off of these basic sources of human conflict. Here is a graphic that illustrates the dynamics of these foundational sources of societal conflict:

Darwin’s theory of evolution is right in the middle of the chaos because it has political, religious, and anti-religious implications. The longevity of Darwin’s theory of evolution serves as an example of biased science buoyed by personal sentiments because it has atheism and political value.

One could argue that if the theory of evolution did not have any atheism value it would have gone away with other folklore concepts such as bloodletting, alchemy, and the idea that the earth is flat.   

A great deal of profound scientific research is being accomplished. Though the data can be credible, the interpretation of the data can be subjective because most all of us have leanings in one or two of these foundational directions: political, religious, and anti-religious.

In the case of the source of underground magma deposits, a goodly amount of expense and effort went into producing the data regarding it but the interpretation of the data brought about different results; very common and typical of modern day science.

In the case of analyzing data related to the theory of evolution, there are various ways that the data can be vulnerable to the biases of personal beliefs. In regards to data interpretation, here is a data point to consider:

By looks you could say that this woman looks more ape than other people you have seen, and by looks alone you could pass her off as a data point in favor of the notion that mankind evolved from ape. By looks you could say she is a link between ape and man.

Scientifically though, it is not a matter of looks but a matter of genetics. Apes have ape genetic code and humans have human genetic code. Scientifically, you have to say that she is 100% human because her genes are 100% human. Genetics wise, there is no in-between.

This has been an example of two different ways of interpreting data. One, by looks is circumstantial and intuitive. The other is scientific and more verifying type of data interpretation.

 Here is another example of circumstantial and intuitive data interpretation:

This is strictly not based on genuine verification but is in fact an artist’s interpretation of what is believed to have happened. Genetics does not verify this intuitive interpretation of man evolving from ape. It is an unverified guess. When children see this guess in school and in the library they perceive it as scientific fact. I know. I did.

From the pure science perspective, evolution should not be a contest between science and religion, and who gets to have it their way, but a matter of scientific facts in spite of what people’s beliefs may be. This is the attitude of pure scientists, a mindset of discovering and defining actual truth in spite of popular and personal beliefs.

I’m not advocating that scientists should go to church or not go to church. Nor am I saying that scientists should or should not be politically active. I am saying that when interpreting data and coming to conclusions about scientific research, political, religious, and anti-religious sentiments should be left at home.  

6. Genetics Compared to Computer Science

The creation of the theory of evolution was based on circumstantial evidence and after 160 years of trying to validate it, it is still based on circumstantial evidence without any credible verification. 

But in today’s world it is endeared by many and treated like scientific fact. It really should be regarded as folklore science that has seen its day. More importantly, it is a racist concept which does not belong in modern day society.

In our modern times, we are better equipped to recognize the fallacies brought to us by this old-time folklore. We have a better understanding of systematic code that guides the functioning of physical occurrences.

Genetic code and computer code are very comparable. Like computer code determines computer programs, genetic code determines species. The environment does not determine computer programs. Human generated code determines the essences of computer programs.

Think hypothetically here for a moment. You have a computer on your desk with a program in it called Ape. You want to upgrade your software to a program called Man. If you leave your computer on your desk for millions of years, your Ape software will evolve into Man software, right?

You know better than that. Computer code, in and of itself, is not changed by the environment unless it is in the realm of destruction caused by physical conditions of a damaging sort.

This is the 21st Century. There weren’t computers in Darwin’s day and he didn’t know about things like programming, software, and upgrades. You have to download Man from someone like Microsoft in order to change your software from Ape to Man. This is very comparable to genetic code and evolution.

Contained within this book is a clear reassurance through unbiased analysis that genetic code, like computer code, cannot be changed by environmental forces unless it is in the form of destruction of said codes. It can though influence breeds within a species.

This analysis shows that it is inaccurate to believe that genetic code is naturally changed from any kind of species’ code into some other kind of species’ code. It is out of sync with the natural laws of the universe and is akin to saying that the environment has the capacity to change old computer code into new computer code.

Nature is no more capable of upgrading genetic code than it is capable of upgrading computer code.

The environment can have an effect on the genetic characteristics but not on the genetic code itself. It is important to understand the differences between the two.

Genetic code is like computer code and the genetic traits or characteristics are like app options.   

The theory of evolution as we know it is an old horse that needs to be put out to pasture. It is mostly propped up by propaganda for its atheism and political value as well as being passed on as a matter of tradition.

You hear about it so much that it seems like it is true but in reality it is old stuff that we, mankind, need to get past, and move on to more modern and genuine concepts that mirror the realities of our physical existence.

The theory of evolution implies that black people are less evolved from ape than white people. Taking a candid look at the theory of evolution during our modern times where racism is a critical hot-button issue, it is particularly important to get right because racism is not going to go away by teaching this sort of folklore in schools.

Einstein said, “There is neither evolution nor destiny, only being.”

Einstein did not believe in the theory of evolution because it is not in harmony with the natural laws of the universe. This book identifies basic natural laws of the universe and uses simple methods to explain the relevance and nature of these laws.

Just as importantly, it is imperative that all of us individual members of the human race as well as us collectively, need to understand these laws in order to understand ourselves and our place in the universe. This is important because it has an effect on our individual and societal health; such as the well being of black Americans.

Concerning the destiny part of the above quote, Einstein had on occasion, referred to destiny in terms of mankind in general, and in terms of demographics such as the destiny of the Jewish people, but not in terms of the individual, because destiny and free agency cannot exist in the same package.

As a whole, we the people of the world probably have destiny, but as individuals we have the freedom to act for ourselves because we function as unique individual beings. This is what Einstein meant by “only being.”

But there is a deeper side of the “only being” part of his statement. We are defined by our personal essence not by the supposed spontaneity of happenstance such as man evolving from ape.

We are more than what modern day science depicts us as. We need to know the true nature of our being, which can be had, in great measure, by acquiring accurate depictions of our physical existence.

7. The Value of Ascertaining Correct Knowledge

Power mongering elitists gain power and wealth for themselves by deceiving the general public into conforming to their concocted agendas via the utilization of propaganda and sneaky deceit tactics. Fake-science guided by biased agendas is very much a part of this norm.

Whether practitioners know it or not, they are a great source of propagated partial truths mixed in with obvious truths that make the untruths seem true. The value of ascertaining correct knowledge is freedom; freedom from ignorance and vulnerability to bullying by elitists and their followers.

Agenda driven science is bias science that is more about attempting to determine truth rather than discovering it. Real truths of the universe are simply discovered, not concocted. 

The scientific method is to establish a hypothesis, and then go about testing it for verification purposes. Too much of the time the hypothesis is fallen in love with and clung to as if it is bonafide scientific knowledge without being sufficiently vetted.

I like to take the opposite approach. Instead of coming up with hypotheses and grinding out data to support my hypotheses, I prefer to look at data and ask what is this data saying? This approach is more in the vein of searching for truth rather than attempting to establish it.

Instead of manipulating data to fit a clever guess, it makes more sense to me to seek for truth by analyzing the data and letting it speak for itself. I can certainly give scientists credit for totally awesome methods that reveal incredibly enlightening results. Their results can be very credible but their interpretation of their data can reek with agenda exhaust. I have been able to get a lot of mileage from reexamining leftover hypothesis driven data with the only agenda being simply searching for genuine truth.         

Probably, speaking to you as the reader, an enormous percentage of all the information you have in your head is tainted by inaccuracies without you knowing about it. For the most part, the intangibles, such as political religious and political concepts are easily subjected to being inaccurate because they are more based on personal opinion and emotional desires more anything else.

However, the physical truths of the universe are understandable and verifiable. They can be had as undeniable truths. Unfortunately, they are hidden from our view by a multiplicity of bias interpretations of our day.

As stated, truths of the universe are simple and easy to understand. You don’t have to understand and know how to work differential equations to understand the simple truths of the universe. You can and need to understand them for yourself without having to rely on choosing whose words to trust as to being actual truth.

Using the pure science tools outlined in this book, you can have a clear understanding of our physical environment which will add meaning and self-worth to your life that can only be had by by an accurate understanding of our physical environment.

The value of this correct knowledge is that: (1) you can’t be misguided by being fed misinformation if you know for yourself what the real truth is, and (2) society in general can’t be manipulated into errant paths of contention if your neighbors are similarly acquainted with the same accurate truths.

Acquiring actual truth can empower basically well-meaning people in the world, who are in the majority, to mold society into a safe and fair-for-all worldwide family of human beings.  

Falsehoods are standing in the way. We have the numbers. What we lack is the unity that can be afforded to us by ascertaining the same verifiable truths of the universe.

Personally, you can’t be convinced in adapting errant ways if you know for yourself what the good honest truth is in spite of what the elitists of our world are proclaiming.

Understanding simple truths of the universe should not be shrouded in mysteries. If they are shrouded in mystery, it is probably due to misinterpretations of the facts and there is a need for re-examination.

That is what this book is about; the re-examining of inaccurate scientific concepts of our day by the utilization of pure-science methods. I am not asking you to take my word for it but to understand it for yourself in order to possess as your own without having to lean on anyone by taking their word for it.

Why should you care? You should care because you want your journey through life to be meaningful as well as accompanied by fair-for-all societal health for all of your brothers and sisters within our world-wide family of fellow human beings. Competition to a degree is healthy, but unfair mandated competition is not.

It starts with your understanding of the physical realities of life as well as your neighbors gaining the same accurate truths. From there the unity provided by understanding the physical truths of the universe will make it so the intangibles will more easily slide into place and make good sense also.

It is up to you to do your part. You need to have a clear understanding of the basic and simple truths of the universe. With this clear understanding you will not be bullied into errant ways and will help the world become a better place.

Real truth is like a straight line. Genuine truth leads to more truth and is in harmony with other truths. All of the puzzle pieces fit together and the overall picture looks right. Most especially, real truth feels right.

Regarding evolution and speaking collectively of the modern day world of science, I feel embarrassed by what is going on. You will too when you see how easy it is to understand the real truths of the universe.

If you come to a clearer understanding of the universe and the specifics of our physical environment via pure analysis void of any kind of bias, the theory of evolution will not look anything like a healthy theory to believe in. The reality of it is that the theory of evolution is as silly as saying that an amoeba had sex with a grain of sand and evolved into a computer chip.

Look for partial truths making inaccuracies seem true. The Theory of Evolution is a perfect example of partial truth making an inaccuracy seem as though it is true. The truth is there is such a thing as “natural selection,” and it can affect genetic traits within a species that can lead to various breeds of that specific species. The accompanying lie is that natural selection can change species into new kinds of species. Mixing lies with bits of truth is very common. Look for it.

From here, in this book, we will be identifying some of the most key natural laws of the universe and then move on to debunking prominent existing cases of folklore science by measuring them up against the natural laws of the universe along with running them through other forms of unbiased analytical procedures.

As mentioned, real truths of the universe are not mysterious and hard to grasp. The targeted audience for this book is geared towards the level of high school graduates and beyond. There are some simple mathematical calculations involved but nothing more than basic math involving adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing, and some simple exponential math.

All will be well when we ascertain a more accurate perception of the true characteristics of or being, both collectively and as individual members of the human race. There will still be issues to be settled but they will be taken on more humanely when we know for a fact that we are not derivations of beasts.

We live in troubled times. I see these troubled times as a result of too many of us living the laws of the jungle because it is believed by too many that we are originally offsprings of jungle animals.

First though, we need to get past the habit of accepting bogus concepts as truth. We cannot be happy as individuals and have an overall healthy worldwide society of human beings by living lies.

Understanding the truths of our physical existence is sorely needed. Furthermore, understanding of these simple truths, from the perspective of pure science is both attainable, and verifiable. We don’t need to be in a state of believing in and living lies.

As an individual, you, the reader, are totally capable of understanding these simple truths for yourself, without having to pick who to believe and not to believe. That is the goal for formulating the content of this series of books. Figure it out for yourself and bask in the joy of ascertaining pure and accurate knowledge.

8. The Line of Truth and the Recognizing of Accurate Knowledge

One of the keys to recognizing real truth and separating it from falsehoods is to check concepts for congruency, or in other words, check and see if concepts are in harmony with reality and with other concepts you are certain are validated.

Sometimes they sound good and are of what you think are from reliable sources, but in reality, they may not survive the test of time. The theory of evolution is one of those things. Someday it will be recognized for what it is and part of the past; like believing that the world is flat and that you can fall off the edge of it.

Real truth is like a straight line. Truth leads to more truth and is always in harmony with other truths. (The symbol stands for infinity.)

Notice the ∞ symbol. There is an infinite amount of knowledge to be had. Gaining knowledge is a continuous journey if not blocked by falsehoods.

Along with leading to further truths, actual truths are simple and easy to understand. On the other hand, falsehoods lead to dead ends with holes in explanations that never get filled.

Regarding Hole1 in the above graphic: genetic code is like computer code that stays the way it is in spite of app options, like genetic traits that might be selected.

In Alaska the environment may influence a breed of dogs into being hairier than it would in Ecuador that is located on the equator as opposed to being up near the polar ice cap. In order to change the dog species into some other species the orderliness of the genetic code would need to change into something else, hair length is a trait option, not a shift in genetic code.

Another good example is regarding the differences in ape genetic code compared to human genetic code. Ape genetic code has 24 chromosome sets as opposed to human genetic code that only has 23 chromosome sets. There are no environmental forces that can rearrange the code into 23 sets rather than 24 sets.

This is covered in more detail later on in this book.

Regarding Hole 2: when I was a youngster, there was always a “missing link” statement included in the theory of evolution narrative. “Missing Link: is referring to evidence of a genetic connection between ape and man that is composed of both ape & human characteristics which would be evidence of a transition from ape to human.

Looks wise, there have been bits and pieces of possible links between ape and human, but technically, there is no such thing. What would the link species have, 23 chromosome sets or 24 chromosome sets? There is no such thing as a ½ set of chromosomes. See how things can get complicated and unexplainable.

The ape and man evolving from a common ancestor angle would have the same problem as man evolving directly from ape. How many chromosome sets would the common ancestor have; 23 or 24?  

At any rate, these two problems with the theory of evolution have never been adequately explained and never will be. Back in the 1960’s the theory of evolution would be stated similar to, “a theory that man could have evolved from ape but there is a missing link that has not been found in order to validate it.”

The embarrassing part of this is that the “theory” part of the theory of evolution has been removed from it and it is nowadays simply referred to as “evolution.” Likewise the “missing link” qualifier isn’t a part of its reference anymore either. 

In other words, the “missing link” was included with it in order to express that it is a theory and that it has to get past the “missing link” part of it in order to be validated. This “missing link” part of it was recognized as a setback, but has since been excused for whatever reasons.

In the field of biology, for example, the true nature of genetics is hidden from view because of the theory of evolution and is hindering progress towards simpler ways to cure cancer and similar sorts of endeavors.

If cancer is a matter of cell-splitting getting rouge signals from sub-cellular communication waves, possibly, the cure for cancer could be something as simple as recording the rouge signals and rebroadcasting them in the direction of the cancer cells in the form of equal and opposite phase of the rouge signals.

The rouge signals would be cancelled out without having any kind of effect on the healthy cells surrounding the cancer cells. The point here is that if researchers are looking at it through theory-of-evolutionary eyes they could be looking past simple solutions that are being blocked from their thought processes because of the effects of their honest belief in folklore scientific concepts. 

Truth leads to more truth. Honest beliefs in falsehoods don’t just keep further truths from being discovered but have ill effects on the lives of individuals and on society in general.

What is being stressed here is that real truth is simple and easy to understand and leads to further truths that are all in harmony with each other; and, unlike the theory of evolution it is not riddled with complications that are impossible to explain away.

Here is an extraction of Professor Anderson’s quote that I shared with you earlier about the lack of harmony between various disciplines within the world of science:

Too often, one discipline’s unproven assumptions or dogmas are treated as firm boundary conditions for a theoretician… (Anderson)

A “theoretician” is a theorist or a person who proposes a theory. Anderson is pointing out that there are theories built upon theories by theorists who treat “assumptions and dogmas” as “firm boundary conditions” for establishing more layers of theoretical conjecturing. In our world, we have always had an abundance of layers upon layers of theoretical conjecturing facing us to sort through.

Here is a typical comment about the evolution of intelligence. It is an example of how modern speculation looks at intangibles as results of natural spontaneity, which is leaned on for establishing more layers of theory built upon layers of theories.

Notice the political jabbing in its content which is typical of political bias intent.

There are primate species which have not evolved any greater degree of intelligence than they had 10 million years ago: this is because their particular environment has not demanded this particular adaptation of them. Intelligence as an adaptation to the challenge of natural selection is no better or worse than any other adaptation, such as the speed of the cheetah or the venomous bite of the cobra. It is, however, the only adaptation which has allowed a species to establish complete domination over the rest of the natural world. Whether our species has yet acquired sufficient intelligence to manage this responsibility is a matter for debate ~Wikipedia article: “The Evolution of Human Intelligence”

Is this true? Did human intelligence evolve from animal intelligence? Does human intelligence look any different than ape intelligence or is it a matter of more volume vs less volume?

Is intelligence a physical thing that the environment can manipulate? Why did the environment choose apes as its ingredient for evolving human intelligence? Why didn’t it choose rats to gradually make more intelligent, instead of apes?

What kind of environmental condition would cause some apes to start getting smarter and not other apes? Does the environment have intelligence of its own sort?

You just never know what Mother Nature is thinking or why she chooses to do things a certain way. Who or what is Mother Nature anyway, a female God that is secular rather than religious?

So, what is on the other side of the mountain that is going to cause natural selection to make apes smarter? Maybe the food is smarter on the other side of the mountain.

No, wait – it is a matter of environmental pressures. Oh, I get it; in order to survive; it takes more brains to eat bananas on the other side of the mountain – so only the smartest apes survive which makes their brains grow bigger.

So, what about other species of animals on the other side of the mountain? Did the same challenges cause them to grow bigger brains too?

If it is harder for rats to find food than apes, then their brains should’ve been growing bigger than ape brains. That’s why rats like to sneak into human houses and dwell with humans. They feel more at home with humans, because they are not as stupid as apes.

If I grew up on the same side of the mountain as those two selected apes, maybe I would have gotten better grades in school.   

So many questions! So mysteriously complicated! Why not just Google things and find out from your electronic devices what you are suppose to believe; and just leave it at that? It almost always works for getting traveling directions. So, why not for everything else? There’s nothing like having a “smart” phone.

This is the problem. We tend to have the propensity to believe what we are told without thinking clearly about critical issues. If you don’t want to be jostled about by ill intending elitists, you need to get it figured out for yourself.

Real truth is simple and easy to understand, and it is always in harmony with other truths. Einstein called it harmony of natural law. This is not a complicated concept. In this regard, you can be as smart as Einstein. Simply look for simple truths that are in harmony with other simple truths.

Just as importantly you need to guard yourself from accepting falsehoods as real truth. The biggest enemy to realizing actual truth is to believe in falsehoods. Believing in falsehoods blocks you from ascertaining actual truths. Untruths sprinkled with bits of real truth are especially devious and harmful.

9. Develop an effective method of Information Processing

As mentioned, the biggest enemy to ascertaining correct knowledge is the acceptance of falsehoods as to being true and embracing them as actual fact. Once this happens you are blind to seeing real truth.

It is important to have a predetermined method of sorting out information that you receive as you progress through life.

In one full lifetime an incredible amount of information will be passed your way. It is unreasonable to expect you to check all of the sources and examine all of the data for yourself. Even well-meaning individuals can supply you with a bum steer without meaning to.

Though you can’t check all the sources and examine all of the data for correctness, you can question all that comes your way and give it the congruency test. Develop the habit of asking, “Is it simple and easy to understand and is it in harmony with other simple truths?”

Here is an information processing system that I have used which helps me to sort out facts from falsehoods. The first step is to take everything you have ever learned and regard it as being maybe true or maybe false.

It may be a little scary for you at first, but you will see that it actually is a safer way to go because it will open up new avenues of acquiring genuine truth; new truths that have the capacity to enrich your life and gladden your heart; which you will come to greatly appreciate. Enlightenment and progress are the seeds of experiencing life at its best.

When you were born you were like a blank sheet of paper. Your upbringing habitat, education, good experiences, and bad experiences are some of the things that make you what you are. When you reach a certain point in your development as a unique individual, say about age 30, you realize that there are some things written on your sheet of paper that you didn’t ask for.

Part of it is in the form of what you believe. Good, bad or ugly there are things you discover that you believe in which were handed to you without it being of your choosing. It needs to be sorted through along with sorting through new bits of information that are continuously coming your way.

What I do is to sort through it and put it into one of four categories and file it away for future reference. The four categories are specifically:

For real, I actually don’t have a filing cabinet like what is shown that I file information in. It is all in my head. As I get new information coming in, for example, I examine it and file it away in one of the four categories.  

Notice there is no category for absolutely true. I don’t have one, because I don’t want to get duped into believing something is true which is in reality false. That is a killer for attaining accurate knowledge because believing in falsehoods blocks one from recognizing actual truth.

I used to have the “theory of evolution” in category (1.), Makes sense and is probably correct, until I did my own analysis of it and switched it over to category (2.), Does not make sense and is probably not correct.

Notice there is an emphasis on “probably.” You need to be free to make changes if you deem it necessary.

If you accept something as absolutely true and in reality it is not true, you are dead to any truth that it may be preventing you from discovering. Everything in your brain needs to be floated at least to a tiny degree.

If you feel very strongly about something that you have strong conviction for, you can change the verbiage to something like: “It does not make good sense and it is most likely not true,” or “It makes good sense and is most likely true.”

If you are not sure about something and need more information or more time to sort through the particulars, there is nothing wrong with that; put it in category (3.) Information that still needs to be processed, until you have it nailed down enough to have a clearer understanding as to which category you want to file it in. 

Notice the emphasis on the word “you.” It is your call, you make the decision.

Category (4.) is a special category that requires an extra amount of explanation but is important to understand.

This is where I put items that are not physically verifiable. For example, there is no such thing as an unbiased history book. What is biased to one is not necessarily biased to another.

My view is that if you didn’t see it for yourself and it is history or news, than it is subject to personal interpretation not of your choosing.

I had a news reporter interview me and had her write-up on me printed in the local newspaper.

It was an okay report, but to my surprise she put her own words in quotations as if it was what I said. That was a long time ago. It didn’t do any damage but it still bothers me because it was dishonest. It was close to what I said, but in reality, it was in her own words, not mine.

It is history now. Insignificant history, but none the less, it was printed, published, and it is now recorded history.   

Here is an example of possible inaccurate history. I have heard several explanations of what led to the fall of the Roman Empire. Explanations are never ending. Someone from somewhere is always coming up with a new explanation regarding the fall of the Roman Empire.

One explanation I’ve heard is that the leaders weren’t thinking right because they were drinking water that was being piped to them through lead pipes. Personally, I think leaders can be “not thinking right” if they are drinking water piped in to them through copper pipes also.

In reality, there were probably several factors that contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire. I’m sure there was a Roman Empire; and it is entirely conceivable that they had lead plumbing that could have led to them being subjected to lead poisoning.

But it sounds like there is no definitive answer for explaining Rome’s fall. There is a great deal of speculation by scholars on the matter. and each author believes that his or her interpretation could be of legitimate value. 

When I was a kid in school, the Roman Empire was labeled as the greatest empire of all time. It consisted of most all of the civilized part of the world, and it lasted for 500 years.

History has changed. Now it is looked at as more of a Nazi Germany or Soviet Union type of regime that was bent on conquering their neighboring countries and subjecting them to their rule. 

Did George Washington actually chop down a cherry tree or was it an apple tree? Maybe he never chopped down a tree of any kind.

When I was a young student studying history in school I learned that George Washington, as a youngster, chopped down a cherry tree. When he was confronted about the misdeed he said in effect, “I cannot tell a lie. I chopped down the cherry tree.” True or not, as a youngster, it had a positive effect on me.

Later on my impression was that the story was concocted and used for campaigning purposes in Washington’s bid to be elected president. In my history book there was a cartoon like drawing depicting a boy and an adult male engaged in conversation while standing next to a small chopped down cherry tree.

Later on in life, my teenage student had to explain to me that the story was a myth which was made up several years after Washington’s death by an author who was trying to make his book about George Washington more interesting.

I eventually did an online search for it to see what the latest version of the cherry tree saga was. Talk about evolution? Every author that wrote about it applied his or her own interpretation to the story in accordance to what he or she was aiming to say.

One author changed it to a cherry tree that had some of its bark chopped away without being chopped down. I can see the thought process here. George was only a young child of 6 years old or so and was probably given a small hatched for Christmas.

Cherry trees can get as big as oak trees. A six-year-old chopping down an oak tree sized tree with a small hatchet doesn’t sound reasonable. Chopping away some of its bark though, sort of makes more sense. Accurate history or not, it is written in black and white.

When I was growing up and even into the first part of my adulthood, fear of the Soviet threat was always a concern. We were very mindful of the fact that they had enough nuclear weaponry to destroy us here in the US several times over.

It was a situation that seemed ever present and would never go away. Then one day, unexpectedly, the Soviet Union collapsed economically, and had to dissolve itself. The big black cloud went away. It seemed pleasantly surreal.

Years later, a teenager of mine left his history book lying out at home. I picked it up and causally thumbed through its pages. The section on the fall of the Soviet Union caught my attention because it was something I lived through.

To my astonishment, the fall of the Soviet Union was depicted totally different than what actually happened. I know. I lived through it and was afraid of being nuked to death.

But if you didn’t live through it, and no one told you differently, you can come away from it with a dishonest and totally corrupted version of reality.

The president of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, was depicted as the good guy that peacefully went about dissolving the Soviet Union out of the goodness of his heart. All of the satellite countries that were, seemingly forever, enslaved by the soviets, were kindly granted their independence.

However, President Reagan, the policy maker that economically destroyed the Soviet Union via the nuclear arms race, was mentioned in part of one of the sentences. It simply stated that he signed some treaties. 

There was nothing said about deterrence, the expensive arms race, the disrespect for human life, the mean hearted aggression, thoughtless arrogance, and other pertinent aspects of dealing with the rogue regime. They were the scary bad guys. They didn’t want peace. They wanted total superiority over all. I know. I lived through it.

There are countless examples of misrepresentations of the facts. Mistakenly, unknowingly, purposefully, slightly distorted, totally distorted, sugar coated, you name it; the list of causes goes on and on.

A lot of it is so buried in the past and there is no way to tell what the real truth is. In my mind I stuff it in category 4 and I don’t worry about it. The truths of some matters are not going to be known.

The God question is a good example of an item that belongs in category 4 also, (4) the information is not physically available. Notice the emphasis on the word “physically.”

This is saying that there is no physical evidence that has been discovered or could possibly even be discovered that will prove whether God exists or not. Science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God.

To believe in or not to believe in God is a personal choice and there is no scientific evidence that is going to change that. There are professors that will state before their pupils that “there is no God” and then go about their work trying to prove that God is nonexistent.

More than 4 billion dollars have been spent searching for life on mars. For you personally, has that been worth it? If life is found on Mars, it will not serve as evidence that God does not exist. A religious person can simply say, “God put it there.”

More than 11 billion dollars have been spent on building and operating a particle accelerator in order to measure the weight of the Higgs boson, nicknamed the God Particle. It weighs 126 GeV. Does knowing this give you any degree of the warm fuzzies?

The nickname “God Particle,” itself is indicative of speculative scientific chatter being aimed at proving that God does not exist. Does knowing the God Particle’s weight help you decide whether God exists or not?

It needs to be mentioned though that there was very pertinent data derived from the 11-billion-dollar project. This will be covered in more detail later on in this series of books. It is the “God Particle” reference that is not necessary and is inappropriate.

Continuing with the God question, once upon a time there was a caveman who figured out how to grow wheat by planting wheat seeds in the ground. He looked over his patch of wheat with his partner at his side and said, “Look what I figured out. There’s no God. This is better than anything God has done for us.”

“But dear, what makes the seeds grow into plants?” she asked.

“It’s spontaneous.” He replied. “It just occurs naturally.”

Millions of years later mankind still has the tendency to discover something about the universe and proclaim, “I figured it out. There’s no God.” No matter how many times scientist figure out things about the physical characteristics of the universe, it will not add up to evidence that God does or does not exist.

A modern-day theoretical physicist was lecturing on the nature of the universe. He told of the ancient civilization’s belief that the sun is God riding a flaming chariot across the sky. He pointed out that eventually we learned the true nature of the sun and then he proclaimed, “There’s no God.”

Debunking religious theory as to what God is believed to be or believed to have done is not evidence that God does not exist. No matter how many religious teachings science disproves, it will never add up as evidence that God does not exist.

Millions of years after the cave couple had their discussion about their patch of wheat, many in the world of science are still thinking in terms of “spontaneous” and “just occurs naturally.” There is always a cause and effect. 

A couple hundred years ago or so, man eventually figured out that moisture stimulates the seed to grow and it is the genetics (essence) in the seed that guides the wheat seed to grow into a wheat plant.

No matter how mysterious acts of nature seem to be, it will always be a matter of cause and effect. No matter how mysterious to our understanding it may seem, the cause and effect of it can eventually be learned and understood.

There is no such thing as spontaneous creation without regarding the reality of cause-and-effect. For example, you can’t say life just spontaneously created itself. Something caused it to be created. Cause-and-effect is a natural law of the universe that should not be ignored.

The cause-and-effect needs to be defined and understood or it is not pure science. It is hocus-pocus conjecturing.

In the above hypothetical example, the cavewoman believes wheat grass growing naturally from the wheat seed is evidence that God exists. She is the type that will always recognize the hand of God in all things. To her caveman partner though, wheatgrass spontaneously growing from the wheat seed is evidence that God does not exist because he planted the seeds and caused it to grow where and how he wanted it to grow.

To the pure scientist it is always a matter of cause-and-effect. Whether the scientist believes in God or not should not be part of the equation. Personal political, religious, and anti-religious views can taint scientific endeavors and cause it to be fake science.

Putting the God question aside and considering what makes the universe tick purely from a cause-and-effect perspective, is the only approach a pure scientist should have. Otherwise, his or her work has the potential to be fake science due to preconceived notions and beliefs. The job of a pure scientist is to discover truth rather than trying to determine whether people should believe in God or not.

As long as science is on track and only considering the physical truths of the universe in terms of cause and effect, the God question belongs in category (4): the information is not physically available.

We can conceptualize 1 ÷ 3 = 0.33333 … ∞, but in our minds we cannot fathom an endless string of threes. In the same since, that which is physical in nature does not have the capacity to verify nor invalidate God. That which is finite in nature cannot totally envision that which is eternal and all knowing.

The mechanics of our physical existence however are eventually both understandable and verifiable. But there are some things that, for now, are not going to be known. I put them in category 4.

When I do discover something different about something that I have in category 4, I can always pull it out and put it in one of the other categories. This has happened.

It may seem like I’m somewhat of a nut case by walking through life without believing in anything at all. I do have some strong convictions though, but I am very particular about what I choose to have strong convictions for.

10. The Dark Side of Strong Convictions

If you or anyone else has strong convictions for a cause, belief, or established organization, it possibly can be good, but also has the potential to be very dangerous. In this case, I am using the term “strong conviction” in the following sense:

  • Strong Conviction: Taking a strong stance on one’s belief(s) and opinion(s)

Hypothetically, let’s say some individual(s) craft a statue of a calf made of pure gold, and have convinced themselves and many others that their golden calf is deity. This deity should be worshiped along with obeying established commandments mandated by the caretakers of this deity. If you disagree with them, you are evil. Metaphorically this is what we have in the world, many golden calves in a variety of shapes and forms.

The participants of the various golden calf movements quite often have strong convictions that can be heartfelt and intense. But there is easily a dark side of convictions that tends to take on a flavor akin to, “If you don’t believe it and live it, you are going to go to hell,” or more potently, “Believe it and go along with it or you will be eliminated.”

The questionable part of it is the “it” part of it. In the world of religion there is a multiplicity of beliefs as to what one needs to adhere to in order to be safe from going to hell. In too many cases there is hell on earth to pay for non-conformance, even to the extent of killing on another.

If I was God, I wouldn’t want my children having ill feelings about each other because of haggling over issues such as rules of righteousness or even whether there is such a thing as God or not. Issues should be discussed but not to the extent of hating and killing one another.

This includes politics also. Some say, “If you don’t conform you are a racist bigot.” In the case of Mau and his thugs, they murdered over fifty million people for not conforming to his political concepts. The truth of the matter is that politics has a religious flavor of its own sort, and can be practiced with like fervency of conviction.

So, it is true with science, “If you don’t see it how it is decided to be taught, you are stupid and don’t get a good grade,” or “you can’t teach at this school.” Recently there have been zealous professors encouraging their students to protest guest speakers on college campuses even to the extent of resorting to violence.

Such is backwards teaching and backwards learning, that is if having a fair and safe world to live in is an important objective of educators. This type of educating is anti-religious by being religious in its own way.

The answer is not education if education is in the business of propagating falsehoods. Protesting free speech is barbaric. The world has already been there. We need to move on to higher standards than what higher education has been trending towards.

Life is full of golden calves. In general, higher education has been creating a calf of its own. Politics and atheism convictions are at the core of it. Atheism based science is very typical of being of the golden calf variety of conviction.

It comes with an arrogance that is hurtful by propagating a false version of the universe and hiding the true characteristics of our physical existence from the public’s view. For too many of these types of characters, it is more about battling God for superiority than anything else.

Conceptual convictions are for the most part subjective and not being verifiable, such as the true nature of God and what political platform one should be dedicated to. Conflicting convictions easily lead to bad feelings for others and foster conflicts of varying degrees.

In contrast, the physical truths of the universe are simple and verifiable. For example, the equation E=mC2 is simple. It merely quantifies how much energy is built up into forming mass. By various means this equation has been verified several times over. Most likely there is probably not going to be any wars fought over whether it is true or not.

The truths of our physical existence are simple and easy to understand if not retiled with folklore and other forms of falsehoods. These physical truths of the universe are also, like E=mC2, verifiable. We can safely assume that they are true and feel good about accepting them as accurate information.

Since the physical truths of the universe are verifiable, they also have the capacity to unite the masses of the world into conformity of belief.

Conformity of belief based on actual verifiable truths is the key to leading our world society of human beings into unity and natural fellowship that will provide us all with a safe and fair-for-all environment to prosper in. There will continuously be more on this in all six of these Z-series of books.

Your assignment is to check what you believe and learn for yourself the simple truths of the universe by keeping yourself on or near the line of truth which will lead you beyond the golden calf follies of our day.

11. Strategy for Recognizing and Ascertaining Genuine Physical Truths of the Universe

As you read on and examine the content herein, be thorough and make sure you understand it for yourself. You want it to be your knowledge that you acquired by the might of your own understanding.

The following is a strategy that I recommend you use, or use at least one of your own concoction that will allow you to vet the information you currently have and will have coming your way.

For your contemplation pleasures, I will be passing on some particulars to you that you haven’t heard before. I’m not telling you to believe it because I say so. I’m saying gain an understanding of it for your own internal library and referencing guide.

Here are some pertinent items of contemplation:

  1. If you have any kind of common sense at all you should realize that good honest truth is hard to come by. You should know this because there are too many confusing and conflicting ideologies that rule a reign in our day. Step number one is to realize that good honest truth is rare. Be honest in this reality, and look at all that you have heard and learned, and all that you will be hearing and learning, as more likely to be incorrect to one degree or another than 100% correct. There is nothing wrong with being discretionary.
  2. Believe that the physical truths of life are discernible and verifiable. Don’t chalk things up as mysteries of nature that will never be known. Assume that eventually, step by step in the form of a continuous journey, physical attributes of our existence can be clearly understood.
  3. Realize that the number one enemy to acquiring good honest truth is accepting bogus information as truth. This is a killer. If you are 100% vested in an inaccuracy, it blocks you from coming to recognizing good honest truth. It is okay to have convictions but they can also be hurtful in your effort to get to the acquisitioning of correct knowledge.
  4. Look for congruency. In general, real truth is in harmony and in support of all other truths. In this book, very specifically, what I mean by “congruency” is what I just stated, “truth that is in harmony and in support of all other truths.”
  5. The biggest bad you can do, is to think you know it all. Learning and gaining knowledge is a continuous journey. Stay in journey mode.

Next, let’s move on and take the unbiased route by first identifying and defining some of the basic natural laws of the universe, Einstein style.


CHAPTER II: Natural Laws of the Universe …(Continued)…

*BUY NOW* $24.99 per book + shipping


This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Image-of-table-of-content-1.png

*BUY NOW* $24.99 per book + shipping