It is July 11 2016 and during last days, Dutch sporters were 'everywhere' the fastest (Dafne, Churendi, Tom, Max and a swimmer too). And 5 new little yellow birds flew out in my garden today. A day to remember.
There is only one human race and when you kill a person, you kill your own family.
I no longer have internet at home, never had a mobile phone, have no car but just a bike and a radio (DAB+).
I am 67+ now, an old body, and I want my last years to be simple like these 5 new little yellow birds.
Gravity-motor for at home. The stand (statief) is about 2 meter high, the rope (koord) on the reel (haspel) 2 meter long. When you move the reel away from the gear-wheel (tandwiel) system, you can wind the rope around the reel (point at picture 1). Then you move the reel back in the gear-system and hang a heavy weight on the end of the rope. The slowly falling weight then drives the dynamo.
You can also make a free-wheel mechanism inside the reel, and then you do not have to move this reel. But I like simple constructions. The way I picture the thing, exactly so it can be made, for a few dollars.
With 8 of these double gear-wheels, 1 rotation of the reel is nearly 6 million rotations of the dynamo. Maybe 7 double gear-wheels is better or 6, 5. Or you can use smaller double gear-wheels (6 : 1 or 5 : 1).
Maybe your own weight can drive your bicycle for a while; every now and then, you have to lift your seat then. It anyhow fills the battery then. And, take one with you when camping; an ordinary bag with local sand then serves as weight. And at night it fills your electric vehicle.
Suppose, 1 billion people now all lift 50 kg in such a gravity-motor. I think we then no longer need nuclear power.
Can be mounted on every normal bike. Also point at the picture.
The thEbike mechanism anyhow fits on this bike. Also point at and click on the picture.
Can be made as very strong gear-case. Also point at the picture. And click on the picture for a simple version.
If every big crane on earth has such a main-reel, they produce a lot of free electricity. Electronics then switches off the dynamo when lifting mass.
We are at a Turning point in the history of mankind, because:
Internet and mobile phone break open every closed society. Some people blame the West for that. But technique is the cause; you can not build an iron curtain against satellites.
Science now has mapped nearly all the facts. We will never do great discoveries and inventions again, so that also has come to an end.
This new global open society demands a new view at human, life and reality, a Relational view.
Reality consist of forms, all kinds of big and small forms, with protons and electrons as smallest (durable) forms. These forms form the material aspect of reality.
But reality also has an immaterial character, quality for instance, the quality of food and other things. Or think about spirit, team spirit, think about idea, the idea of a book, movie or other thing. These immaterial apects are no material things, but nevertheless exist.
Until now philosophy was not able to define this spiritual aspect of reality in a scientific way.
In the relational view, the spiritual aspect of reality appears to be a natural fact, though an immaterial fact. We always mean a relating when we speak of spirit, idea or quality, and with relating I simply mean a fitting of forms, like the nut fits on the bolt.
The Spirit or Idea of a bike is the Working.
And in that fitting of forms, we see all the different workings of reality. That is what we always mean with spirit, the immaterial working of reality. So spirit is a natural fact.
In the relational view, conflicts like between materialism versus idealism or rationalism versus empiricism no longer exist. The workings are the Spirit of nature, and our human mind is an extra sense organ with which we see the workings.
These workings by the way also are fundamentally important; it is the screwing (the idea of the screw-thread) that defines the forms of both bolt and nut. In the same way, it is Electra that defines the forms of both proton and electron. I think that on the deepest level, proton and electron constantly are formed by Electra, the proton as an enclosing of (inner) space, the electron as a being enclosed by (outer) space. And in the gap between, everything is happening.
This relational view is a very simple view, maybe too simple for people who are too rational.
In order to survive, animals use all kinds of technical tools fixed on their bodies like furs and feathers, claws and hoofs, pincers and wings, shells and sometimes even whole houses. And when animals are naked, they often use chemical or electro-magnetic techniques like poison, shocks or mimicry. They need these techniques in order to survive.
But humans are pure naked existence, and that is because we have our mind. With that we see a coat in a fur, a weapon in a stick, an airplane in a bird, a plank and therefore a house in a tree, chemistry and electronics in Electra et cetera. We do not need techniques fixed on our body, because we can invent these techniques ourselves.
Our nakedness then even becomes our strength, because only naked you fit in everything, in a diving-suit, a space-suit, a polar-suit, in a hang-glider et cetera. Just imagine you have a fixed fur, or wings on your arms! You do not want that.
Because of our nakedness combined with our mind, we also are free, the only free birds in nature. Animals actually are culture, culture of nature. The bird, that is a flying-machine, with the naked existence imprisoned.
We however are pure nature and have our culture, clothes for all kinds of circumstances, vehicles for on land, on water and in the air. We are free to survive everywhere.
With our mind we see that forms fit to other forms, the tree on water as boat, the covering fur as coat, the rolling tree as wheel et cetera. Animals only see the things, the human also sees the working of things. And when the forms fit well (shoe on foot, food on tongue, music in ear), then we call it good, beautiful, healthy, nice. Then we speak of quality.
And no animal is able to enjoy quality more than a human does. A heron swallows his fish in one bite, but we then first start to cook, to make it more tasty. And we do that with everything, clothes, chairs, beds, sounds, sex as well.
And that enjoying too, is caused by our mind. We see forms that fit, and we also see perfection in that fitting, and then we enjoy.
And this enjoyment always is bodily, a caressing of the senses, also when it concerns classical music or elevated literature. Our mind is a sense-organ. With our ordinary sense-organs we see, hear, feel, taste and smell the forms, with our mind we see the fitting of forms, the workings playing there.
And when forms fit well (foot in shoe, shoe on road) then we also speak of truth, a truthful shoe. When we enjoy, we often enjoy truth. Truth (well fitting) is nice.
So a human is pure biology and is enjoying this biology. And our whole economy therefore is busy with making nice and enjoyable things.
And why then is it, that there is the human?
Suppose God created all this harmony in nature. Then of course a being like a human also is necessary, to enjoy this harmony. Otherwise art has no use.
Also see philosoph1.htm#I2. By closing 'philosoph1.htm#I2' then with the browserbutton, you return to this spot; applies to all links here below.
Our greatest gift is our human mind that makes us free to make our own choices. A god that then later limits our freedom by dictating all kinds of rules, would be illogical then. That is why I do not believe in holy books.
I believe in the god who made us free. A believer in a holy book actually is a non-believer.
There is a big difference between (having) knowledge, and (being) understanding. We now have a lot of knowledge, but little understanding. There for example still is the body-mind problem.
Animals also have knowledge, information in their memories. But the human also understands.
So understanding the human, means understanding what understanding is.
You understand the (idea of the) shoe, when you see your footform in the shoeform. You understand even better when you step in the shoe and walk on it.
So understanding simply is a seeing, feeling, sensing.
Understanding is a very natural act. Just think about everything you understand. You always simply see forms then that fit (human legs in trousers, human body on seat, bird as airplane, heart as pump et cetera).
You do not even need knowledge in order to understand.
Everyone who for the first time sees a human body riding on a bike, immediately understands the bike.
If it concerns understanding, we all are experts.
The human is very natural. Animals only see the forms. The human also sees how forms fit to each other. And that fitting is there, everywhere in Nature.
Our mind is just a sense-organ.
Plato, trying to understand the Seat.
There is no body-mind problem, when you understand.
Also see philosoph2.htm#II5.
Reality consists of forms. These forms always fit to other forms. And every kind of fitting of forms, is a kind of working.
So we everywhere see and feel form-working-form trinities. Examples: bolt-screwing-nut, male-Eros-female, proton-Electra-electron, human-riding-bike, tree-rooting-soil, heart-pumping-blood, wings-floating-air et cetera, et cetera.
And when we talk of spirit or (having an) idea, we always mean these workings. The idea of bolt and nut is the screwing. The vital spirit is the pumping of your heart, the breathing of your lungs and all these other workings playing in your body.
So Spirit is a physical fact, and our mind is a sense-organ for spirit.
The form-working-form structure of reality, is the noun-verb-noun structure of language. We use nouns for the forms, verbs for the workings.
And even in words, we see the form-working-form structure, since open sounds of vowels there are enclosed by more closed sounds of consonants.
I think this is all a philosopher can say about language. So better think about reality (again).
Also see philosophconcl.htm#concl1.
The better the shoe, seat, bike, city, society et cetera fits to the human, the more truthful the thing is.
So quality in the sense of well or nice fitting is part of the scientific truth.
Only mathematics is value-free science.
A bike is not objectively a bike.
And our Western societies at the moment are scientifically untruthful, since many things do not fit well.
Also see philosophconcl.htm#concl3.
Bolt and Nut can be compared with Proton and Electron. The outer screw-thread on the Bolt then is like the positive charge of the Proton, while the equal but opposite inner screw-thread in the Nut then is like the equal but opposite negative charge of the Electron. And like the Nut encloses the Bolt, the Electron encloses the Proton.
Between Bolt and Nut, the (immaterial) working Screwing is playing. Between Proton and Electron the (immaterial) working Electra is playing (electro-magnetism; the field of Light; finitely fast light).
Only if you have a real Bolt and a real fitting Nut, screwing (connecting things) is possible. However, in order to manufacture Bolt and Nut, you already need the working Screwing. So it all starts with this immaterial Screwing there (the Idea of the screw-thread).
In the same way, Electra (constantly) forms Proton and Electron, I think. In the Beginning there was (and is) Light. That is what we see on Quantum-level, I think: Creation is constantly going on.
See more about this on Fabcframe. This for example:
The smaller the part, the more fundamental it is, in general. A city for example is made of buildings, and the buildings are made of bricks. And the brick then can be seen as fundamental building-block of the city.
Now suppose there would exist a miraculous brick. A brick that, after you shoot it apart into fragments or even smash it into powder, becomes a brick again, automatically and within a fraction of a second.
Are these fragments then more fundamental than the miraculous brick, since they are smaller? No, I think. Not the size but the durability defines whether a part is fundamental or not. And in this case, the self-(re)forming brick is durable and not the fragments.
Such a miraculous brick seems to have a soul, seems to be a spirit. Not only a form, but also a forming. The fragments at the most are material, used by the brick-spirit to form itself.
The proton and also the neutron are such miraculous bricks. Physicists shoot protons into fragments in particle-accelerators. But within a fraction of a second, these fragments form protons again, as if the proton is a self-forming spirit. And physicists are building ever bigger accelerators, so that in the end the proton can be pulverized into 'powder'. And this 'powder' too then will automatically unite again to form a proton again.
At the moment, physicists consider these fragments to be more fundamental than the proton itself, since the fragments are smaller. They then try to arrange these fragments in all kinds of mathematical ways, trying to find laws. But the only real law they discover then is that these fragments always unite again to form a proton again, within a fraction of a second.
It is as if the time-direction inside the nucleus of an atom is opposite to the time-direction outside atoms. In the outer-space, the bigger parts all fall apart into smaller parts in the end. In the inner-space however, the smaller fragments automatically fall together into protons. Shooting a proton into pieces then is like shooting a proton to the past; it will come to the now again then as soon as possible.
See particles.htm for the rest of this essay.
What will they discover there at CERN? Many (new) particles (fragments) I expect (some of them Higgs-like).
First this: I am not (pretending to be) a physicist!
Some professional physicists seem to really hate amateurs like me who write about physics on internet. Physics mainly is: observing and mapping the basic or fundamental facts, and writing down these facts in the form of (mathematical) equations. I of course fully agree with this map.
Next to that there also is a theoretical problem, the difference between normal mechanics and quantum-mechanics. What exactly is happening there, inside an atom? The facts are known! But how can we understand these facts? That is the question I try to find an answer to, and that is philosophy, imagination.
Light is very fast, has a speed of ±300.000 km per second, 8 times around the world in just 1 second. Is that really fast, so objectively?
Imagine, our speed of light suddenly becoming 1000 times higher (300.000.000 km/sec) while all distances, out- and in-side our body, would grow 1000 times bigger as well, atom-sizes and wave-lengths too.
Would we notice the change then (scaling up or down)? No, I think. So, how fast is our light? Its speed is just finitely high, between zero and infinite.
Imagine the speed of light becoming so infinitely high. An infinitely high speed actually no longer is a speed. Would you be able to travel really infinitely fast, then you would be everywhere at the same time, always. You no longer would be an individual then.
Also fill in for c in physics. The electromagnetic force would become infinitely strong then (or infinitely weak), letting your body disappear into an infinitely small zero-point of nothing.
So it all starts with finitely fast light. Space gets a meaning then, outer-space but also inner-space, hidden inside the nucleus.
But what then does it mean, an at first infinitely fast light suddenly becoming finitely fast (the Big Bang?)? Well, the only characteristic I can think of then is 'curving' of empty space. Curving means changing of speed, force, and therefore can be measured. Straight empty space can not be measured, I think, so does not exist for us.
Light waves are curves in space, gravity is a curving of space.
And then there must exist a kind of smallest curve, for that specific finite field of light. It is a very small space for us. But seen in a much slower light, it can be the eternal infinity. So the proton contains an enormous space, actually. It all is relative.
See more at light.htm (also see quantum.htm).
I also think that, in order to relate normal mechanics with quantum-mechanics, physics has to make a distinction between outer-space and inner-space, so between inner- and outer-dimensions and -directions as well. Then we also can explain the wave-particle character of nature.
Also see Body-Mind, where I write:
Maybe an electron only is particle-like in relation to a proton, but is wave-like for other electrons. A proton then only is particle-like in relation to an electron, but is wave-like for other protons.
An electron then has an inside particle-character but an outside wave-character, while a proton has an outside particle-character but an inside wave-character.
I mean, every light-wave I see, every electro-magnetic wave my transistor-radio translates into music or a voice, originated from an electron. The wave-field is like the river, the electron like the source. Source and river are 1. I live in a cloud of electrons.
According to me, it never really is proved that mass is the cause of gravity. Standing on earth's surface, it also seems to be a matter of course, that it is big-earth that makes you heavy.
Space everywhere is 'filled' with the finitely fast speed of light, in every possible direction. And where- and when-ever there is 'such kind' of movement, in the ocean, in the atmosphere, there always also comes circling to existence. Two or more colliding streams cause rotation, like a wheel.
Now suppose our solar-system is such a big circling (wheel) of light. Circling causes G-force in the direction of the centre of the circle. And the bigger the circling is, the heavier is the G-force in the centre. So the G-force at the surface of the sun is very heavy.
Our whole solar-system 'wheel' then is caused by the circling of our milky-way; our 'sun-wheel' then causes the 'planet-wheels'; the 'planet-wheels' cause the 'moon-wheels'. Et cetera.
Gravity then is not caused by mass, but is a characteristic of the field of light, caused by a circling of light.
Mass then will pile up in the centres of these gravity fields. As if mass then is the cause.
Can I prove this theory?
Well, there exist gravity fields in the cosmos, with in the centre too little mass to explain, by Newton's law. Physicists then assume the existence of dark mass.
My 'theory' does not need this dark mass.
This description of gravity fields also perfectly matches Einstein's general theory of relativity wherein gravity fields are a curving of space.
Is it really necessary that mass causes these curves then?
So maybe there does not exist a gravitational constant, making physics simpler.
Gravity fields then just have a size. I mean, (rather) far away from the earth, earth's gravity dissolves in a kind of overall background gravity in all directions. That then is the (circa) size of earth's gravity field. And the bigger this size, the more heavy the gravity is in the centre.
Without gravitational constant, theoretical physics becomes much more simple. It is very difficult now, to relate gravity with the other 3 natural forces.
And we can make physics even more simple then, based on 2 lengths and the speed of light.
I mean this:
A charge of 1 C (coulomb) = 6.2422×1018 electrons.
A mass of 1 kg = 5.9712×1026 neutrons.
So C and kg actually are numbers, of smallest units.
In physics we therefore can replace C and kg by these numbers. The charge of an electron = 1 then, the mass of a neutron = 1 then.
Then h/c = 1.3196×10-15 meter (h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light).
And then = 1.9257×10-17 meter ( is the magnetic constant; × = 1/c2 according to Maxwell's equation; is the electric constant).
The relation between the 2 fundamental lengths = 68.5, half of the fine structure constant.
See more about this on Fabcframe.
This for example:
"The information about these mass- and charge-numbers and about the relation between the numbers is hidden in the words weight, energy, current, tension, resistance and the like. So when we replace both the kg and the C by numbers, physicists will never be confused about which numbers play a role. When they speak of tension for example, they know it is about the number of mass-units per the number of charge-units; kg/C then is superfluous in the standard, since kg/C is hidden in the word tension."
That also is true for h and .
There I also write:
"We now for example see that Planck's constant h is expressed in the same combination of standards as the ohm, the standard for resistance against electric current, namely in terms of m2/sec, a length times a speed. Planck's constant is ±25,813 ohm then. And since h is fundamental, ±25,813 may very well be a fundamental amount of resistance. And in 1980 the German physicist Klaus von Klitzing indeed discovered that ±25,813 behaves as a constant, a kind of natural unit of resistance.
The constant (resistance of a vacuum = 376.73 ) then appears to be 1/68.52 part of 25,813 ohm. There is that number 68.52 again."
See more at physics2.htm.
Imagine, someone-real-big breaks the earth into ball-shaped pieces, each with the size of our moon, and then brings all these 'new moons' in the same orbit as our old moon; a chain of moons then.
What will happen then? That is the puzzle.
Will all these new moons create their own moonlike gravity-field then?
Does earth's gravity-field then no longer exist? So, will all these new moons and the old one then disappear in straight lines into our solar system?
Imagine our someone-real-big is doing that with our whole solar system, our milky-way, our whole cosmos? With all these new moons as well, so that in the end only little moons size 1 metre are left, travelling in straight lines through the cosmos? Where is gravity then?
For me, reality consists of past versus future with a Now-moment in between. And your Now of course is not my Now, your past is not my past. Our future however can become more or less the same. (And, partly, we of course all have the same past as well.)
So every body is the source of its own time-field. Your body is your own clock. So, we all measure with an own clock. That is also why there is the special theory of relativity.
Past versus future for me then corresponds with inside versus outside, inner-space versus outer-space, with a gap then in between.
This gap is no inner-space, no outer-space, but is just space. And actually only this gap really exists. I mean, inner-space is hidden and past, outer-space is not yet here. Only the gap exists now.
Past-inner-space versus future-outer-space, that for me is reality. And in the Now-gaps in between, every thing is happening. That border-movement is our reality.
Inner-space (neutron, proton) still is the building block then, the 'brick' used by Nature to build the City of Life. This brick for us is a static thing. But inside, there only is movement, like in a real brick as well.
The strong and the weak nuclear force according to me play in the inner-space, so also in the past. Light and gravity play in the outer-space.
And in the Now-gap in between, we find Electra, electro-magnetism. And that is where every thing is happening, by means of relating. The 2 gaps of 2 H (hydrogen) atoms for example like to form 1 common gap, as 1 H2 molecule.
That is how chemistry works. Nature likes a harmonious relation between inner- and outer-space, likes harmonious gaps.
The strong nuclear force according to me originates from the deepest past, and we all have this deepest past in common, in the deepest inside of our neutrons and protons. The counterpart of the strong nuclear force in the outer-space according to me is gravity. Both forces in a way are directed to the inside past.
Weak nuclear force has the opposite direction, wants to bring neutral neutrons to light, to the surface. The counterpart of the weak nuclear force in the outside-space is the field of light, bringing our whole cosmos to light.
And in the Gap between in and out, we find Electra, in 2 directions, from out to in, and from in to out.
|Strong nuclear force||Light|
|Weak nuclear force||Gravity|
I grew up in the aftermath of a rather closed society (catholic farmers). Oppressive but also safe.
Internet and mobile phones now break open all closed societies. A 12 years old child now already stands alone. What to choose? Mam and dad do not know either.
This new mondial global open society (we all are in the same boat now) also demands a new view at human, life and reality, a relational view.
A few more words at last (9 Dec. 2010). Only 50 years ago, our Western societies also were rather closed. Man versus woman, old versus young, high versus low. It all was defined.
It took us 50 years to slowly come to where we are now. Arab and Asian country-villages however, now suddenly have to deal with internet and mobile phones. A shocking experience for them, especially for the elderly men who still paid a dowry for their wifes. I understand their shock. We must talk with them, not fight!
Whether you like it or not, we really are at the beginning of a New Age.
Simply because of the fact that there is an enormous difference between the years 1900 and now, 2005.
In 1900 very much knowledge still needed to be dis-covered. Now in 2005, hardly any fact is left to be dis-covered. Most scientific facts are mapped now, though not yet fully understood.
This enormous difference between 1900 and 2005 is a fact, an important fact. See more about this elsewhere on this website ('The end of economic growth' for example).
That will involve a totally different character of this New Age as well. No longer focused on discovering great quantities of facts (and new techniques), but focusing on quality, well fitting, nice fitting.
There now are not many new techniques left to be discovered, compared with 1900. So next 100 years will be totally different than last 100 years.
Actually, the age of dis-covering always is a unique short period of time, in every history of every thinkable mankind, wherever in the cosmos. Because once having dis-covered the basic techniques, all other techniques will be un-covered in just a few hundred of years, or 95% of these possible techniques.
And then, so now in 2005, it for always is finished, the dis-covering. Nearly everything is un-covered now.
And I repeat, this is not just a belief but will be a fact. Very much left to be dis-covered, or little left to be dis-covered, that is an enormous difference.
Do our politicians see that this is going to happen?
I think that in a very short period of time, we can improve the situation on earth very much, simply by using our Consumer Power. Economy that is producers plus (versus) consumers, and every producer also is consumer. As consumer all people are 1; we all want a good reliable valuable phone, laptop, car et cetera.
Suppose we make next demands on the producers:
I believe that 90% of the people like these ideas. Well, speak out. Demand! Customer is king, is what we say in Holland. Also see ConsumUnism.
Finally some words about the future of the personal computer.
I think that in the (near) future, many of us no longer have a personal computer (pc) but instead of that have a personal space (ps) on a big computer somewhere else, a server. I mean, in order to work on a computer, you need your screen and keyboard in front of you. But your computer can be somewhere else, even far away. And 'your computer' then also can be a personal space on a big computer (server). With an usb-connection on your modem, you then can do whatever you do now with/on your pc.
Your lightweight laptop then consists of only a screen and a keyboard, plus an internet-antenna/connection, and uses normal AA batteries.
Think about it! It also is very safe!
Internet, that simply is a network of big computers (servers) switched on day and night, and accessible for everyone, the public. So actually internet is our public computer (or mankind's personal computer).
The amount of memory of our public computer is unlimited, and the same is true for its processor capacity. So there is space (and time) enough for everyone on our public computer.
Actually, companies, especially the smaller ones, already use our public computer (so internet) as an extension of their own personal computer; they then do not have to buy an expensive bigger computer, do not have to buy expensive software. They hire public-computer-capacity when they need it. This is called cloud computing. The cloud, that is the cloud of software and hardware-capacity that is available on internet.
My idea is that nearly all computing can be done on our public computer, and especially for private persons, it will be safe.
At the moment all these people travelling around with their laptops, carry around all their personal correspondence, administration and other personal documents. That is not safe.
Put it on our public computer! Safe like on a bank.
Only 1 hour ago, the people of Egypt took over power by just peacefully sitting and sleeping on the streets.
Also see: The power of people (2004).
20-1-2011 | 11-02-2011, J.P.M. Helderman, Alkmaar
IN THE HEART
In the heart of the matter, every thing is One
(like every piece of surface has the same heart of the earth).
So the smaller you become - only the beating of your heart -
the more you are connected.
among people who only live on the surface,
you then feel alone.
But being alone does not also mean being lonely.
(Actually these people on the surface are the lonely ones.)
I anyhow am with you.