Cluster Abell 2261

Cluster Abell 2261
A "Local" Big Bang - the Abell 2261 Star Cluster

Friday, 31 August 2018

There is a fundamental failing in almost all human thought about reality.  Whether it be a Religious Garden of Eden or a Scientific Big Bang, they all but insist that our existence, our reality, has a beginning – and there is an absolute block to any detailed knowledge as to what preceded or precipitated that beginning.  That is despite the fact that almost all advances in knowledge push the "beginning" farther back.  So it unreasonable to announce that the current scientific favorite (Big Bang Theory) has to be the final step we will ever take.  It is not even fair to state that must be the truth for the present knowledge we have of the Universe.  It is completely illogical and inconsistent with how knowledge has evolved; sometimes that evolution is simply through a new view/order of the already documented data available to Science. That is supported by the fact of the advance of theories that the human race has experienced throughout its existence.  This site begins the detailing of the Theory of Relativistic Perspective - it is a mathematic examination of difference there would be in theory logic if you were examining reality from a Relativistically  distorted Perspective - and, the resulting re-model of The Big Bang Theory.  A much more comprehensive theory does exist, but the aim for now is just to gently poke a few grey cells.  All really new ideas take some time to accept.  Hopefully, yours will be quicker than this writer's.  It took me 5 years to develop and confirm the mathematical arguments I needed to convince myself that while it is not absolutely certain (no Scientific theory ever is) it is very absolutely debatable - at least, in contest with current theory.

So the fundamental declaration: formulas for Relativity would be different if you plug in what a distorted observer would see.  While you may see the Starship "Enterprise" get shorter zooms past (because of Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction), from the perspective of Captain Picard and the crew, you are getting longer.  But there are valid equations for those alternate, distorted perspectives. 

They are new ideas that are indisputable mathematically.  But let's try and get our perspective right.  Imagine that you'd been sitting in a classroom, in 1920, listening to the Einstein Ph.D. fellow lecturing  — you admire him, though he looks a little strange with the frizzy hair and round glasses.  He had come up with a paper called “On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light" — an explanation of the Photoelectric effect.  It was one of those ideas that seemed obvious once it was suggested, but you wanted to see if he’d agree to you there being parallels between dislodging electrons through Photon impact and simple electron conduction.  Since conduction consisted of one electron impacting an atom, that led to the expulsion of an electron on the opposite side, that led to another atom and another electron and so on -- there was a kind of parallel to the ELECTRO-magnetic force of photons dislodging electrons.  Or maybe he'd just claim that was what theory was about to start with.

But then he goes off into that odd idea about the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 & the Lorentz-Fitzgerald business — that all things get thinner the faster they go.  You’d rejected that idea as soon as you’d heard it.  But this fellow claimed to have come up with an expansion of the equation and what that expansion led to.  He goes through the experiments that established that contraction, and the mathematic reasoning that supported it.  Even though you’ve heard about those before, it alarmed you a little to hear that this fellow had swallowed the idea whole.   You’d be hoping to be getting some relief from that weird notion.  It seemed so  contrary to what you knew the world to be.  But then he goes on to describe how that simple well documented FACT led to equations that establish that the mass of any object increases as it goes faster and time passages within that object slow down, both in exactly the same proportions as it gets thinner.  Finally, he shows how the mass equations can use binomial theorem to produce another equation that defines/quantifies the relationship between matter and energy:

          e =mc2

Not only do you have trouble understanding that relationship, but also, when you DO understand it, it seems stupid — as much as you admired the Good Doctor on the “Heuristic” business.

You try to work with it again and again (and again) and you do begin to see some of its logic — though you know haven’t gotten FULLY what it means.  And you spend the rest of your life coming across new aspects of what it means.  "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" can be argued to be the most fundamental and important theory of our reality — but Special Relativity never won a Nobel Prize.   It just takes a while to comprehend and accept the "Moving Body Dynamics" business - Relativity was/is just too weird.

All new ideas need to work with everyone to get accepted.  No matter how incontestable the arithmetic/logical reasoning and ease of understanding is, the first thing you do with a really new idea is to reject it.  That's because of the simple fact is that almost all new ideas are wrong ideas.  Mathematics is a wonderful toy, but it is also a wonderfully flexible & deceptive toy.  Sophisticated enough mathematics can “prove” just about anything.  So it is not an unquestionable proof if it is made mathematically.  Though some research fans may subconsciously reject this reasoning.  They see the more complicated the explanation is, the less likely the great unwashed are to understand it.  So that means it is more likely to be right.  But if you think about, it's the opposite.  If it takes account of the appropriate issues - and Relativity does allow accounts for them all - the simpler the mathematic/numeric logic is, then the more incontestable it is.  It lessens the room for invalid presumptions/deductions.

So let's just start with a poke at the overly conservative and limited left side of your brain that always insists on logic.  Hopefully we will be able to convince it of a fairly simple & incontestable idea. Having the limited/conservative side of your cerebral cortex on our side will then make it a little easier to convince the same cortex's right lobe of the same idea.  Teach that right lobe that the Relativity Theory that IT knew when it was just a "baby" brain might have some other twists that it never learned about.  Working together, those contesting lobes will probably not only be able to swallow the idea, but they’ll be able to come up with some new aspect of the idea independently that will make the whole thing seem more reasonable.

We’ll go as basic as we can.  The Classic Relativity time equation:

          Time’=Time/(1-v2/c2)½

Means the faster you go, then the closer your velocity |v| gets to the speed of light |c|.  So the expression |v/c| or |v2/c2| gets closer to one|1|.  Then the expression |(1-v2/c2)½| gets closer to zero.  If the value of the denominator declines in any fraction, the value of the fraction expression becomes greater.  Time' slows and whatever is accelerating you, accelerates you more and more slowly — it becomes harder and harder for “v” to reach “c”.   Just about everyone knows that now: the maximum speed in our reality is light speed.  Another aspect of that slowdown in time is a slowdown in the velocity of light/EM, strong/weak nuclear and gravitational forces, otherwise one of those four would APPEAR to increase.  So more and more of the energy Bosons decay into the surrounding matter, increasing the mass of the MATTER - though again, note that the mass of the ENERGY associated with whatever body is accelerating will LOSE the same proportional mass.

Now switch to General Relativity.  Though it may be debated, it is arguable that the most important equation in General Relativity is the parallel to the Special Relativity Time equation:

         Time’ = Time/(1 – 2GM/rc2)½

If you consider that the equation for escape velocity is:

         VelocityEscape = (2GM/r)½

That would mean that

         VelocityEscape2 = 2GM/r

Now, a valid re-write of the Relativity equation would be:

         Time’ = Time/(1 – (2GM/r)*(1/c2))½

So then you could also write it as:

         Time’ = Time/(1 – (VelocityEscape2)*(1/c2))½

Which would then lead to General Relativity Time equation written as:

         Time’ = Time/(1 – VelocityEscape2/c2)½

And suddenly, the equation makes more sense.   You could reason the maximum ESCAPE velocity was c — light speed.  Which is perfectly logical, because, again, Relativistic distortions have been observed to slow and weaken all other Bosons (the Photon, the Gluon and the X/Y Boson), as was noted before, they surely have the same effect on the fourth Boson (the Graviton).  General Relativity could also be labeled Gravitational Relativity.  That is what the whole theory is about.  How could a Gravitational Boson not be affected by relativity?  Then the sudden exceptions needed to all OTHER current physics theory for the Big Bang Theory are not needed.  Matter particles would descend into any Schwarzschild Object, where the free energy made available by the slowing of all Bosons (and the conservation of energy) would go, primarily, through a metamorphosis from pure energy into kinetic energy attached to the matter particles — making them go faster.  Though part of that energy goes directly into the mass of the matter because of relativistic effects.  The particle might even get back out of the S.O., because that "impassable" border that is so celebrated in modern science is the point at which to escape the S.O., you would need to be moving at light speed.  But there is nothing to prevent you from passing it — or just going into orbit outside it.  The above also suggests, that like Special Relativity, because of the Time distortion, you will APPEAR to be going faster than you are.  Just as in Special Relativity, the mathematics for observations from a distorted perspective and undistorted perspective have to be different, because the data those observations would produce would be different.

There also are unconsidered consequences to the slowing of Bosons.  If the kinetic energy of all matter particles were to decrease in exact proportion to the Boson slowdown, then it might be reasonable to say that there would be the real time slowdown imagined in endless Science Fiction stories.  But that is completely unreasonable.  What that would mean is that with increasing General Relativistic distortion the energy — be it kinetic or Bosonic, would disappear.  Conservation of matter/energy can be argued to be one of, if not THE, fundamental rule of all reality.  It is supported by a parallel in Special Relativity.  According to time distortion theory the Bosonic energy associated with a moving object would HAVE to reduce because the object would be moving faster - all the Bosons would lose mass because they would be moving more slowly.  The MATTER mass increases in exactly the same proportion.

So the the greater the Relativistic distortion (Special or General) slowing of the Gluon would mean that the Strong Nuclear force holding the nuclei together would weaken.  Though the repulsive force exerted by the matching EM charges of the protons would weaken by exactly the same proportion - if there were no other considerations, things would stay the same.  But though the nuclei would be no more likely to SPONTANEOUSLY break up, their structure, the pull/push of Strong Nuclear Force/EM would weaken in parallel, making that structure more fragile.  The gigantic amount of kinetic energy pressed upon them by combination of Relativistic effects on the slowdown of any Boson particle and conservation of matter/energy would mean they would go much faster and faster, and collide with each other in that more fragile state — thus going further and further down the Periodic Table.

That would explain why the oldest part of the Galaxy – the Core – would have the highest proportion of Population II stars.  Strictly by the rules, they’ve had the greatest time to develop heavier elements (Iron, Cobalt, Nickel, Uranium, etc.), so they should have the greatest proportion of those same heavy elements — but they don’t.  Population II stars are almost all Hydrogen/Helium.  That would not make sense if it were the oldest part of the Galaxy.

And the Relativistic limit to escape velocity of Light speed, would mean that any matter object or atom or particle could get close enough to that light speed limit and escape — leaving all those lonelier and lonelier Bosons behind, desperate to link up with some single Baryon, Lepton, Quark, whatever.  And they all get a greater and greater amount of kinetic energy in the process.

It is one of the most fundamental ideas in Science is that energy and matter are separated by the fusion of Elements into higher atomic numbers.  But then that matter/energy would be re-united by Relativistic effects and the matter undergoes fission back down to Helium, Tritium, Deuterium and Hydrogen – so the life cycle of all elements is renewed.  Also gives more time for the formation of super-ferric elements – Cobalt, Molybdenum, Uranium, whatever.  Current theory says only Supernovae could do that[a].    There is no real agreement on Supernova frequency, but citing a moderately recent article in Astronomy & AstrophysicsA New Determination of the Frequency of Supernovae[b], that they happen every 100 years means things are kind of limited.

It might sound like a loony idea initially, but it is a supposition that is VERY confirmable mathematically.  Also takes away the whole problem of where the Universe (Universes?) came from to start with.  That's basically what Big Bang Theory is saying: all the matter/energy we observe came to be in the form of a tiny, Schwarzschild scale pinpoint that spontaneously exploded into what we know as our Universe today.  Doesn't say how that Cosmic Egg came to be laid to start with, though.  Or why the Universe would be so finite, in that sense.  There has never been any limit to our Universe demonstrated.  Whenever the technology/the Science improves, we learn of the farther limits of our reality.  Even if we inhabit some sort of 4 scalar dimensional sphere that defines our border even if we can't see it — if four scalar dimensions exist, then it is unreasonable to say there would not be an outside as well as an inside to that 4 dimensional sphere.  It is time we supposed a more scientific infinity to our reality — in time and space.  This theory espouses the notion that the Universe (or our part of the Universe) was nothing but Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) - or something like it: an infinite cloud pure energy of unknown density.  What brought about that cloud is currently unanswerable, but the currently inconceivable notion of negative energy (i.e. an opposite of matter/antimatter/energy) would suggest that the whole infinite mega-Universe began from nothing.  While that is an uncomfortable notion both logically and with current knowledge, but it would resolve the question of where reality itself had its genesis.

That thinking overcomes another problem: the matter/antimatter imbalance.  Current theory supposes that matter was favored gigantically in the transformation from energy to matter.  But even if you presume that it was 1.0E+1,000,000,000 (in Standard Notation, that's a '1' followed by a trillion zeros) more likely for energy to transform from energy to matter instead of antimatter, the probability for a Universe this size to form would be approximately 1.0E-56.  Admittedly, though that probability was calculated, the terms in the calculation are very debatable.  But increasing the probability of antimatter over matter particles even by a nonillion (1.0E+30) times the unreasonable number cited above would mean a Universe where antimatter particles could never be formed as easily as they are now in the laboratory.   And making matter particles LESS likely decreases the overall probability of a Universe our size into the inverted GoogolPlex range.  The improbability made even worse by the insistence of current theory that the formulation of the MATTER component of our Universe came to be in a very quick catastrophic event.

On the other hand, Relativistic Perspective allows for a  fantastically Googolplex scale improbability  of a group of free Bosons happening to all collect with sufficient adjacency to spontaneously form a tiny "White Hole" — the Parallel to a Black Hole/Schwarzschild object, but formed with the absorption/masses of Bosons.  In fact, the improbability scale can’t ever be known, but that scale would not matter in infinity.  Once it came to be, that White Hole would continually absorb Bosons, not losing any of them through Hawking Radiation — as each Boson entered the Hole, it would go slower and slower because of the Relativistic distortion, getting closer to the centre.  There is no conservation of Bosons principle. It would be comparable to an ever-increasing red shift, though the overall energy would increase through increased signal strength.   The White Hole becomes denser and denser (and redder and redder!) through a greater and greater absorption of free Bosons.

We know that all matter, both through gravity and transmission through that matter increases the redshift.  The latter red shift could be theorized to occur through absorption of each Photon by a molecule/atom/nuclear particle, and re-emission at a lower frequency.  Inside the White hole, there would be no matter, but an increasing MASS of energy; moving more and more slowly — a lower and lower mass for each individual Photon/Boson, but an ever increasing NUMBER of those Bosons - there's no "Law of Boson Conservation" as there is with matter particles. It would lead the energy concentration being high enough with slow enough moving Bosons, that it would eventually lead to the formation of matter quarks.  It may be that the fundamental "Catalyst" boson to the transformation would be the newly confirmed Higgs Boson.  Perhaps even simpler than those we encounter now (simply because it is currently impossible for us now to duplicate the ultra-high energy density conditions that would be accompanied by ultra high Relativistic distortion) but that is still a valid supposition.  Who knows?  Maybe the Up, Down, Strange, Charm, Bottom and Top Quarks really are as simple as matter ever is.  Though there has been the odd time in all of human knowledge when an absolute declaration is made about something, with the rider that there is no possibility that there may be inaccuracies or other aspects to the declaration.  Physics (and The Big Bang Theory[c]) is no exception to that rule.

To get back to the energy "decay": the baby/non-baby matter quarks absorb more energy, and become big grown up quarks, then Baryons, and Leptons.  And when enough of those get together, a star is formed — from nothing but energy, and spontaneously.  Once that matter object is established, it will both expel the stable matter particles it is composed of (in processes ranging from solar/stellar wind, to Stellar Flares, to Variable star expulsions, to Novae to Supernovae) and produce higher and higher Atomic number elements.  Then it sinks back to Black Dwarf/Neutron Star/Schwarzschild Object status and simply absorbs matter and energy.  But it has also expelled a great deal of matter, manufactured from pure energy.  Where there was no matter before.  It is worth noting that, eventually, any relativistic object will absorb enough matter and energy that it has the effect of re-separating the nuclei.   A neutron star isn’t matter from the periodic table any more: it is just a bunch of individual neutrons.  Determining something that limits escape velocity to a maximum of light speed, as R.P. does, what you are doing is letting neutrons — that would then decay into simplified hydrogen atoms — escape.  Some may think that a necessary add to that proposal would be that antimatter would have an opposite gravitational reaction with matter - repellence instead of attraction.  Another currently unknowable question.  

There is also an alternate cause for the apparent increasing red shift dependent on the distance of the origin of the EM signal.  Energy decay would be something that allowed an increasing red shift to spontaneously occur over great distances.  Current theory mathematically requires the objects we observe on the edge of the Universe to have moved to that edge at more than 20 times the speed of light.

It sounds a little simplistic, but there are many more mathematical, logical arguments on the other pages of this site to support the idea.  There's lots of footnotes/references (mostly academic) too, almost all of them directly accessible on the net.  And it all rests on one basic, inarguable, undebatable principle: that relativistic effects will look different from the perspective of the distorted object than they will to someone observing those distortions from outside.  The simple Michelson||Morley experiment was the first one of many, many testaments to this reality in Science.  The Relativistic linear distortion would make a non-moving observer think a moving body is getting thinner, but the travelers on that body would think that you (the observer) are getting longer.  Just like on Star Trek.  And that principle would be true for all Relativistic distortions.

Though that view of the Universe suggests one theorem: there is no current logical postulate that insists on any of the Universes physical constants or its titanic favoring of matter over antimatter — so if other Local Universes form, would there be some variation?  Would a Scientific community in a Local Universe formed entirely of  positrons and negative charge nucleons label our flavor of reality as composed of a terrifically unlikely substance they'd call "antimatter"?

A final point to be made is this: before The Big Bang theory gained the current stranglehold it has on Cosmology, there were three propositions made: the Big Bang, the Cyclic Universe and Continuous Creation.  Relativistic Perspective has all three of those ideas as part of its substance, because parts of ALL three of those ideas overcome the shortcomings of the other two.  And almost all of the ideas are reasoned directly from the Theory of Relativity.  The full body of Relativistic Perspective will include the General Relativity expansion hinted to earlier; a more detailed definition of zero velocity; a reasoned equation defining Relativistic Radial distortion;  Our Local Universe (and an INFINITE Cosmos); a scientifically reasoned alternate source for matter and a Summary (probably  incomplete) of failings in logic and the contradictory evidence for a finite "Big Bang" Universe.

If you think about it, the above argument leads to the spontaneous creation of matter or antimatter in an infinite reality.  Spontaneous matter/antimatter production events could begin the production of Local Universes – though they each would be would be gigantically unlikely.  Universes like ours would be separated by a fantastic distances – Trillions, Quadrillions, even Googols or Googolplexes of light years||parsecs.  Who knows?  Maybe the existence of any form of matter increases the probability of the synthesis of more of the same.  Then suddenly, the existence of any kind of matter just always reaches a balance point where the destruction of old matter and the creation of new matter happen at the same rate.

All you have to do is suppose infinity and suddenly, the probability becomes unimportant.

Hopefully you're not — like what seems to be all Theologians, Humanists, and Scientists — afraid of that infinity.





[a] Nuclear Synthesis [HyperPhysics||Astrophysics; http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/nucsyn.html
[b] A new determination of the frequency of supernovae  Cappellaro, E.; Turrato, M. Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), vol. 190, no. 1-2, Jan. 1988, p. 10-16. The article can be retrieved at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988A%26A...190...10C
[c] The European Magazine, in an interview with Rolf-Dieter Heuer the Director of the European Organization for Nuclear Research, “Will we eventually learn something about before the Big Bang? 
Heuer: I doubt it.”  http://theeuropean-magazine.com/263-heuer-rolf-dieter/264-experimental-physics-and-the-limits-of-human-knowledge
The Pencil Nebula




A printable version of this page is at The Relativistic Space-Time Perspective


This site was authored by David G. Taylor
    
 I can be contacted on my Cell: 780-999-6134
                                 or at work: 780-444-1290
    
My e-mail is: dgtaylor@telusplanet.net


Thursday, 17 May 2012

Message for Celia


Okay Celia:

Read in an article today: "when God created the universe God put a lot of gas between galaxies - God did this for a lot of reasons" leaves out a gigantic question: where the hell did God come from? Here's a real science-fiction-y theory for how the Universe began.
We live in a finite Universe - now. With the advance of technology, we see more and more, farther and farther. Maybe eventually we will be able to see other civilizations. Isn't it possible that our Local Universe started as a very small cloud of nothing but Quantum particles? By some incredibly unlikely chance, those Quantum particles conglomerate into a single body - say about the size of a Stellar Cluster. At the center, a Schwarzschild object[SO] begins. It pulls more and more quantum particles in until they get to the point where there is enough density to force those quantum particles into hydrogen atoms.

You all know about the paper I have written called "A Relativistic Escape Velocity Maximum of Light Speed " that argues that just like Special Relativity slows Photons, General GRAVITATIONAL Relativity slows GRAVITONS. It does so in a way that limits escape velocity to light speed[c]. Eventually, the things get so tight inside the Cluster that matter starts to form. Initially, matter and antimatter form in about equal proportions - so they then recombine and go back to Quantum status.

Though my idea about our Cosmos is that it is infinite. In the center of those spontaneous clusters enough matter (or antimatter) forms that it is enough for it to act as a kind of nuclear catalyst to make more of the same form. That process continues until enough matter has formed (and escaped because that velocity never goes above "c") that a star begins to form outside the SO. The first one is just a very small red star, but the process continues until some the size of Sun form. That continues until one of them forms into a Solar System with the size and dimensions of ours comes about. It develops a planet the size and composition of our Planet Earth. At first, that Planet is just a mass of over-heated liquid matter. That beginning Solar System wouldn't be nearly a stable as ours. Then, somehow, the planets in that Solar system wind around enough to disturb the still-molten Earth. The gravitational disturbance is so great that it actually splits that body into two. A Moon appears. It's mostly the light elements because they would have been highest on Earth. At first, it's so close that it does nothing but brings about tides that are a gigantic scale higher than the ones we know now. The friction of those tides on the surface of the Earth actually slows it
down. Because of conservation of rotational momentum, that momentum transfers to the Moon and it moves farther away. Just for what's it’s worth, we have evidence of the same thing happening in the shallower parts of our current "Terran" Ocean that the Moon is moving faster and pulling away from our planet. But in the course of that whole trade of momentum, the moon also pulls away part of the atmosphere. We actually know that our planet should not have such a light atmosphere - the evidence of that is Venus. It is both closer to the Sun and fantastically hotter than our planet - but it still has an atmosphere that must be comparable to what our planet started out with.

Life begins on the Earth (now the estimate is about 2-3 Billion years ago) when the atmosphere has become disperse enough to let through Solar radiation. At first, it is just an anaerobic life: does nothing but consume and uses the non-oxygenic gas around it to get the energy to function. Those reactions would not produce nearly as much energy as the OXYGENIC ones do, but then something amazing happens. About 800 million years ago (most scientists think) life forms that absorb Stellar radiation that reverse the oxygenic compounds and produces pure oxygen. That oxygenic energy allows much larger and more sophisticated life to form. At first, it is just more complex plant forms (plants do consume oxygen at night), but then another miracle happens. A life form comes about that can MOVE - animals. At first, those life forms are part plant, part animal. But as they become more and more mobile they get to the point that they maintain their existence by consuming the pure plant forms - herbivores. That too continues until a new animal form that maintains their existence by consuming other animals - carnivores.

Then a life form comes about that can eat both plants and meat. Most important: they can communicate intelligently. They develop civilization just as we did, it continues developing both natural science and social science that brings about the democracies we see now. Those democracies develop all kinds of technology, eventually getting to computers. Those computers continue to advance until it becomes clear that they can even run systems that can mimic human lives. They decide that rather than try to endlessly to maintain a REAL life, it is set up so that VIRTUAL lives can be run. Then everybody, when they become close to death goes to a clinic where their DNA is analyzed (so they can make a virtual image of you), your memories are loaded down from the neural system (they analyze how the neurological boxes are running in your body and they download them) - and you die. But you don't go to heaven (at least not the one that is advertised now) you go to a place where you are still the same person, but you aren't bugged by the endless emotions that came about because of all the various hormones that run through our bodies
continually. You still have emotions,but they aren't bugged by those hormonal misfires. A much more civilized civilization comes about, developing more and more sophisticated ways of communicating with one another. Eventually, they get to the point that a part of them acts as a much more democratic government than we know and are much more able to serve one another's interests. They say that him/her/them is GOD.

They continue advancing until they even get to point that they perceive the limits of their existence, and decide to artificially create more Stars, some of them with a Yellow main sequence Star like ours at the center. It develops the Earth||Moon structure, plant forms, animals form, then intelligent animals, then humans. And they go through the civilization development I talked about, some of behaving so well they can go to the virtual existence, but most return to the not quite finished civilization - hell. As that civilization develops, more and more of the HUMAN animals are able to rise to higher, permanent virtual existence. Finally, they go through an apocalypse engineered by the virtual managers - though we called it World War 1 & 2. Their civilization continues developing, again inventing computers, the more sophisticated programs, and the virtual existence thing. Eventually, everybody is virtual and civilization ends.


One item I forgot to mention. They decide that they shouldn't just reproduce humans. They define your soul as just simple awareness of yourself. So a lot of named pets join the whole heaven||hell - virtual reality||real to a mortal life cycle thing. They rise to higher and forms in terms of intelligence - eventually leave to heaven. It also occurs to me now that if the name business is as important as I say it is, then that is why the baptism is developed its significance in our society . . .

See? I told you it was science-fiction-y. David 


David G. Taylor authored this site

 I can be contacted
              On my Cell: 780-999-6134
                       Home: 780-454-7263
    
_