Some physicists (not reporters bragging with pop-scientific lingo) have been bragging that with some CERN tools and other stuff they will now find the smallest particles while others expect that with larger telescopes that can perceive a couple of additional electromagnetic frequencies, they are talking about final proof of their creationalistic ideas, or "theories."  While many folks of academia still reject energy forms other than electromagnetic energies (I dare to claim that, regardless how many forms of energy we find, there will always be others beyond), they naturally also follow well-established habits of thinking at the same time, which were prevailing some 100, 200, 500, etc., years ago:  namely that what primitive human brains in conjunction with primitive human tools can discover is all there is, that with "logical deductions" based on such limited methods they can understand what is going on in the vast universes and they can understand as well the ultimate truth of all that exists.  The principle that, regardless how much we can perceive/interpret, there are infinite other interpretations possible, which are fitting and satisfying the same factual basis and that, regardless how many facts, forms of energy, etc., are known, there will always be more beyond. 

Typical creationists claim the six day creation, claim that God made humans "with his hands" and they naturally overlook the Biblical "fact" that God put up a solid wall with which he seaparated the waters below from the waters above, onto which the Good Lord affixed the luminaries and stars ... So one set of statements is accepted as absolute truth, while the other one is overlooked conveniently.  This compares very well to the mind set of many, if not most, of humans in our days, who carry the label "scientist."

Introduction

What follows is quite controversial, and the connection between Solar eruptions, Earth quakes and statistics relating to geocentric planetary positions that I observed - and keep observing - naturally has to be examined further.  Either new ideas will add to this basic assumption or the whole thing will be disproven.  I certainly invite any person who is interested in this subject-matter to continue with this research and, hopefuly, to go beyond that which I have worked on.  I am going to help as much as I can. 

Let's not forget:  statistics are statistics, and not every time statistically proven positions appear that which those positions indicate needs to happen.  This, again, is especially true when statistically relating to each other Solar eruptions, earth quakes and planetary positions as seen from the Earth.

It seems to be a characteristic of primitive human brains to assume that what they perceive - directly or with the help of their rather primitive instrumentation - is all there is and that this "all there is" (aka "the laws of physics") has validity throughout the known universe.  Such ludicrous assumption has led to the establishment of ancient mythologies, all of which can be relegated to the realm of fairy tales, thanks to progress in modern sciences, but, alas, modern sciences again seem to go the same way, and many of their assumptions, coming from similar structures of the human brain as the fairy tales (mythologies) of the ancients, are fairy tales again, this time on the basis of a wealth of scientific facts that have been established.  Humans seem to be geared up to make creation mythology, no matter what, and if something is still unknown, it is only considered a matter of time before such facts are explained, a matter of quantity of knowledge rather than quality.  This happens even though there is ample evidence of scientific progress and qualitative changes in ideas, and, alas, we are still not much beyond the mentality of creating ever new fairy tales and creation mythologies.

Joseph Campbell, in his "path of the hero" has pointed out the structure of the common functional principle inherent in pratically all heroic myths (fairy tales again) of which we know, and I can add to this that a similar CFP applies to the fairy tales of creationism in all religious, metaphysical, occult, etc., systems, and, because of linguistic-cultural-societal backgroundstructures, the same type of fallacy has made its way into modern science, especially astrophysics.  The claim that "the laws of physics" are the same throughout the universe ... there's no proof of that!  we barely left our planet, and what they call "astronauts," i.e., travellers to the stars, I prefer to use the word "stratosphere-scratchers," which describes their "travel" a bit better. 

One of the most popular fallacies is "that there can be only one truth," and this fallacy persists even though mathematical evidence/structures point into a very different direction.  In fact, already as a 16-year old I became aware that any factual basis with which human beings are working compares to an under-defined system of mathematical equations:  When there are less equations than facts unknown, there are infinite many solutions, and to get to a solution, you have to define some of the factors unknown arbitrarily.  Therefore, if the dogma of "unshakeable ultimate truth" is attached to some factors, we end up with a mythology that has the appearance of something valid.  Valid it is, in fact, if it helps us to discover new basic facts and to develop new technologies that help up interact more efficiently with our environment. 

Trying to get this "ultimate truth" and postulating it, of course, can be viewed as one of the functions of the human brain, which has helped us to survive as a species, and language, reflecting the mechanisms of human interaction with the environment, adapted to this.  Alfred Korzybski pointed this out in his "science and sanity, an introduction to non-Aristotelian thinking and general semantics."  Since there is money being made with this function-fallacy, a lot of money at that, since mythology sells much better than science, there is little love lost for Korzybski's ideas.

Assumptions - in theories - are ok, if such theories are leading to new basic facts, which eventually may or may not make these assuptions invalid and, especially, if they lead to new ways of more effectively interacting with the environment.  Of my own mappings/theories I expect that they will be obsolete ... the sooner the better, because that's progress! 

Going back to the emergence of mythologies and fairy tales:  Long ago I became aware that the religion that best reflects the meachnisms of socio-economic-sexual repression carries the victory as a main stream religion over all the others, which are catering to persons and groups who think and interact with their environments not exactly according to the general mold.  Once such a religion has become main stream in a culture/society, their proponents/executives have a vested interest in keeping this religion main stream, since this means money and power.  There are two ways of doing so:  make sure the methods of socio-economic-sexual repression remain the same (as done with religulous "rules" and "commandements"), which involves rigidifying them even more, or to adapt to changes, which, in almost every case, requires too much creativity and thinking from the idiots who are in the top decision-making positions of those outfits!

There is ample evidence that science - main stream science - follows very similar CFP's (common functional principles) as religions do and similar methods to remain main stream.  For obvious reasons - one of which is following the genetic inheritance as human beings, and again we may also assume some other interests such as financial ones and also interests of control.  The big difference between sciences and religion is that, in fact, sciences have a long history of success and as such they are forced to someway adapt to changing structures in human societies:  changes that happened as a result of scientific innovation.  This is one of the reasons why traditionally religious outfits hated scientific outfits.  They, at least on a non-conscious level, realized that which scientific outfits did not.  Namely that such outfits are following the same CFP, and as such they can become a serious competitor.  With scientific advances becoming increasingly effective, an uneasy truce came into being. 

The fact that main stream science follows the same CFP as religion when it comes to creating mythologies, is perhaps very obvious in that which is proffered by main stream astronomers.  The resons for this are quite obvious, especially in deeply religious societies, as most of them still are, but also in societies where main stream religion has moved away from that which traditionally was considered main stream.  (Note: Wilhelm Reich, especially in his book "the Mass Psychology of fascism," correctly pointed out the CFP of ideologies, such as Marxist ones and the ideologies in fascist countries.  In such societies, main stream religion can only be accepted if it adapts to the ideological structures, otherwise it is forbidden all together.)

Such creation mythology is especially evident in the "big bang" theory (I love to name it "big bunk" or "big bong"), and, regardless what effects are discovered, they are matched to the existing creationistic myths to the point that they have to be taken as "proof" of the same, and, if it does not match entirely, new things have to be - and will be - discovered to make such a match or at least expand on the creation myth without destroying its idiotic basis.  The obvious characteristic of any factual basis, namely that it compares to an underfedined system of equations, is overlooked, typically out of ignorance, and some totally un-provable dogma is introduced as "scientific reality" such as the ludicrous claim that the "laws of physics" are the same throughout the universe and that electromagnetic frequencies are the only energy form there is.  People are expected to accept those fairy tales without valid proof ever being furnished.  I am talking about proof, not "circular thinking" or assumptions artificially matched up with the pre-conceived dogmata.

Let's get clear about the following:  regardless of how many characteristics we know of a factual basis, there are always some new facts beyond, some more to be discovered, and this applies also the "the one and only one" energy, which, in ancient times may have been a heretic claim anyway ... if we include life energy/orgon, for which we do have sufficient evidence, we humans barely know two forms of energy.  It is perhaps easier to formulate a "paradoxon" based on something that does not as neatly match the dogmatic structures and inventing some sub-mythologies (fairy tales) around it rather than looking for something new as basic as forms of energy that are still unknown to humans. 

Let's start with a few basics:

Even with our relatively primitive organ to produce and perceive thoughts, wherever such a thought-universe may be, when we add the latter hypothesis (no matter whether "true or false," just for the fun of it!) we can perceive/po/construct a mapping of time as 4-dimensional Gaussian space, and then the space of electromagnetic frequencies as 4-D Gaussian and then the space of life energy as 4-D Gaussian.  In fact, a sub-space develops when we consider the CE-space (Chi Energy space) and the EMF-space (ElectroMagnetic Frequency space) as connected in a way, in which there is a mutual coordinate-transformation:  When setting up a continuous space around us with EMF, based on the characteristic #1 that "distance is a result of structural differences" and the characteristic #2 of "entropy," then, when seen in relation to this space, LE-relations become "choppy," i.e., objects can be far away from each other as related to EMF, but CE transfer is immediate, when those objects are structurally near-identical.  On the other hand, when we establish the model of a continuous space around us, which is based on CE, structural similarities and reversed entropy, then structural similarities that are based on EMF-relations can appear as far away from each other, as such almost immediate transfer based on EMF appears within this CE-universe, and the EMF-related space appears as "choppy."

The model of 12-D, if we include the time dimensions (think of the GPS!), makes sense to our human brains, as long as we are limited to recognize but two forms of energy.  Interesting enough, this model of space, or mapping of the universe, allows a relatively simple explanation of many things, which, when described with the still more limited principles/po/characteristics of EMF alone do appear as being "paradoxa."

The characteristic of human exploration that, regardless how large a factual basis we can establish, there are always more factors unknown than equations, which leads to the fact that for practically any factual basis for which we establish mappings/po/theories, there is an infinite number of such mappings possible, all of which fit into the characteristics of the factual basis, upon which we build such mappings.  Installing boundary values, or defining some sets of unknown terms, can flesh out those mappings, but we have to be conscious of the fact that such definitions of essentially undefined terms are arbitrary. 

A principle of "tolerance" results:  there are more objective realities than living beings in the universe - and that's quite a few!!! 

If we make mappings based on some undefined terms, we should put the preference on the usefulness of such mappings:  whether they can explain things to a degree that new basic facts are found, that we can derive useful technologies from such mappings and that such mappings will - hopefully soon - be superceded by new mappings, which too should be jusdged on usefulness rather than whether or not it fits some pre-conceived belief structures, whether it is "true or false" according to some dogmatic principles that have been established as absolute truths by some popes of scientific-religious outfits ...

"Redshift" as described in the big bong theory - with the Earth miraculously in its center - result of "explosion" of the universe ... or simply interaction between EMF and life force ... or ......

Please give me feedback - and I am going to continue here - so come back

Karl Hans Welz