Now we are going to look at the logic behind some of the great pillars of science. If our logic on this new view point seems weak - it seems weak in respect to the current scientific view of reality. Current science seem real and this new stuff - well it might seem a bit flaky and a bit of wishful thinking. If this is the first thing you really understood - Congratulations - your tolerance has allowed you to read this far without giving up. If your reality is grounded in science it is amazing that you have gotten this far. Most people just give up when reading a book that doesn't make sense. Now you can relax as I will speak more directly to you. I will present you with something that is based on experiments. You are skeptical. There is nothing wrong with this. It is very prudent at this point for you to be skeptical of this notion that you are God. Skepticism is an important survival skill as I pointed out in my book, "The Survivor's Guide to the 21-St. Century." Of course, we all would like to have this ideal of being God. But isn't it just a fantastic fantasy? One hundred years ago there was not much scientific evidence, but lately things have been changing. The evidence from science does not prove you are god, it just makes it reasonable that you are.

This experiment marks the dawn of the age of relativity and the emergence of the great Albert Einstein. It was the first great assault against our common sense view of reality. If you read a modern physics book that describes the Michelson-Morley experiment, you are taught a new language, not a new viewpoint. Everything is explained so that you will not really understand the meaning of the experiment. What you will have is a procedure that you can apply to events to transform them into reality. You miss the gut feeling of what is really happening. In short, I think you have been duped.

{for reference: In 1887 Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley performed an experiment in Cleveland, Ohio, which was designed to detect the "aether wind" that physical theory predicted should exist. The results were negative. See American Journal of Science, Third Series, Vol. 34, 1887 pages 333-341. (publishing footnotes to the web is still a problem.}

The common sense view of reality is now called Classical Newtonian Physics. This was the scientifically accepted view of reality before the Michelson-Morley experiment. It is still the way most scientists emotionally think about reality, even though it has been proven wrong!

Why would science and engineering deceive you? Science, like most activities, is at it's heart a political activity. Science is the search for a consensus between scientists for the experimental 'truth' of the world. An individual scientist does not hold the 'truth' but rather a process of experiments followed by consensus is used to define the current truth. In other words, science is a form of democracy of showing and thinking. A hot topic in science will have everyone running similar experiments and arguing about how to understand the results. An outsider wishing to understand the 'truth' will do a survey of the scientists who have experience with the latest experiments, and identify those scientific ideas that they all agree on. These ideas can then be called 'scientific truths.'

Engineering on the other hand is looking for a workable model of the world. Engineers are much more practical than scientists. Science does not change the world all that much, but engineering does. Engineers will keep using a model if it is convenient, even if the model has been shown to be wrong by scientists. It is easier for an engineer to use a wrong model and then use some equation to fix up the results.

To allow you to understand how the current so called scientific culture, has prevented you from viewing reality, I must present you with their new language. When people don't understand they often create a new word, and just move on as if nothing has happened. These words then are used in place of the confusion, as if that was true understanding. Once we have their obfuscation (words designed to confuse you to the point you give up) out in the open, I will point out another interpretation. Science, at least good science was always supposed to be in the pursuit of truth, not comfort. The Michelson-Morley experiment was designed to identify how fast the earth was moving through the "luminiferous aether". "Luminiferous aether" was conveniently shortened to "ether", and it was the medium which permitted light to travel through space. We need to spend a little time coming to grips with what the "ether" means. Let us start with the concept of waves.

If you have ever thrown a rock into a quiet pond, you will remember the waves produced and how they traveled. Scientists have also done this experiment and since it is so widely known it has become the model for many other physical phenomena. Think about sound waves. Sound moves through air - making ripples in the density of air molecules. Air is not exactly like the top of a water pond. The pond has a top, where the air for all practical purposes does not. But by thinking of sound as ripples on a pond, you have a model and this allows you to visualize what might be happening with sound in air. "Ether" was the term scientists used for the substance that light waves were carried in. Sound was carried in air, ripples were carried on a pond, so something must carry light waves too. The model required it. Models and engineering are closely related.

Engineering is built upon models. Models are mental processes taking place external to the self. A model of reality is a mechanism which allows people to visually view what might be happening. So when a person is confronted with an unknown situation where a prediction is required, one can just mentally construct the model, and run the model through the situation and the results become obvious. If the model is not very good, mathematics can be substituted, and calculators used to view the results.

To understand the role of ether, it is necessary to understand another model, that of a mass on a spring. This is the simplest dynamic system and as a model it supplies many of the concepts used by electromagnetic field theory.

{another footnote: Pieter B. Visscher uses spring and mass systems as a basis of his book "Fields and Electro-dynamics". You will also find bedsprings in his book. copyright 1988 by John Wiley and Son Inc.}

Electromagnetic force fields are made up of both Electric force fields and Magnetic force fields. Let me write down some simple math expressions used for a basic mechanical model of a mass and spring and the corresponding simple math expressions used for Electric and Magnetic force fields.

Both the Electric and Magnetic fields act mathematically similar to a spring and mass system. Spring systems compress down with more force according to an old mathematical expression called Hook's law. Hook's law is F = -kx. It states that the position x of the edge of the spring changes when force is pressed against it. As long as the spring coils don't touch and the metal doesn't break - an small increase in force gives us the same small decrease in position. Note the role that the support plays in this. The support does not move. We will return to this support role later, since it represents to some extent the role that ether plays with radio waves. Now look at how similar the other two equations are to Hook's law.

In 1820 Oersted discovered that one could produce magnetic fields from electric currents, and in 1831 Faraday

{another footnote: Michael Faraday, and the American physicist Joseph Henry independently discovered in 1831 that a changing magnetic force can produce an electric current. Faraday described his experiments with electricity and magnetism in terms of a field surrounding electric charges and magnetic poles.}

discovered that magnetic fields in motion could produce electric currents. The spring and mass mechanical system model generates the same type of mathematics (F= -kx) as does the electric field model (F=qE). The magnetic field model is slightly different because without motion (V=Velocity/C=speed of light) the magnetic field does not have any effect on a charge q. A steady current in a wire will give rise to a magnetic field, but as experiments have shown, electric currents are induced only by changes in a magnet field. A further difference is the fact that a magnetic field has a direction that is pointing 90 degrees away from the electric field.

In three dimensional space this 90 degree difference is translated into reality by the "right-hand-rule". (The force is perpendicular to both B and the velocity of motion). The force generated by a magnetic field B is called the Lorentz force and it tends to twist along the magnetic field vector B. Since we don't want to offer a course in engineering, we can just concentrate on spring mass systems. The spring mass system as a concept is what is important. The spring mass system can store up energy by converting force into motion, and electrodynamic systems can store up changing electrical pressure as increasing magnetic fields.

The spring and mass connection allows the mass to oscillate. This moving back and forth has a resonant frequency. The system can be analyzed in the time domain or the frequency domain. You can analyze it as a mass at position x at time t, which is called a time domain analysis, or you could talk about its frequency and its amplitude components, which is then called a frequency domain analysis. The math to convert between the two systems is called the Fourier transform. This is the core model, the training wheels, for electromagnetic field theories.

To make this system capable of modeling the process of wave propagation we need a model that has more complexity. Below is a chain of masses connected by springs.

If we assume that space is made up of very small springs with very small masses and they go on in all directions to infinity, we would have the model used to represent Maxwell's field equations. The interesting concept first correctly formulated by Maxwell in 1865 was the relationship between electricity and magnetism. It took twenty more years before Heinrich Hertz succeeded in producing electromagnetic radiation - radio waves.

Maxwell wrote down four field equations long before the discovery of radio waves, and engineers just love them today. Maxwell's equations enabled antennas to be designed that magnified the distance of reliable radio communications. Today engineers use Maxwell's equations to design new radar systems like those used to map the planet mars from an orbiting satellite. Maxwell was years ahead of everyone else of his time. What Maxwell rejected was the idea of "action-at-a-distance". Maxwell used a spring and mass dynamic mathematical model to describe his electric and magnetic fields. Modern physicists prefer to think that a charged body somehow modifies the properties of the space around it.

Maxwell's equations are as follows:

1. Describes how an electric charge modifies the space around it.

2. This describes how magnetic fields modifies space.

3. How changes in E fields will cause changes in magnetic fields.

4. Changes in magnetic fields will cause changes in E fields.

To translate some of this mumbo jumbo, m is a constant expressing magnetic properties that can be measured in a laboratory, and e is a constant expressing electric properties that can also be easily measured in the laboratory. describes the magnetic effects and describes the electric effects on space. The variable d represents the electric charge present, and the variable represents the electric current present. The ¶ symbol means "a change in value", is "the divergence operator" which gives the field changes along the field lines themselves, is "the curl operator" which give the field changes not along the field lines themselves, and for now they require a bit too much math for us to cover in depth. Suffice it to say that these math operators have to do with three dimensional operations and as such they can be either right or left handed. Since we have only two dimensional paper to print on, and less than a Ph.D. in math, use your imagination while I wave my hands. For half of my readers, I ask your forgiveness, for the lack of detail. The other half will be left in a state of joy! (why does the world have to be so complicated?)

Maxwell's equations one and two describe electric and magnetic fields. Equations three and four give a connection between electricity and magnetism. This connection is what allows radio waves to travel through space. If an electric field is forced to change in a regular pattern, to oscillate, then a whole series of "standing waves" are set up in space. These "standing waves" project out as a train of alternating magnetic fields followed by electric fields as shown below:

Shown on the left is a radio signal generator (the circle with the wavy line in it) connected to a square wire loop. The square wire loop is coupled by a B (magnetic) field which itself connects to an E (electric) field. Note how each alternating field rotates in the opposite direction. These fields are physically separated by the radio "wavelength."

I take the subject of radio waves personally. I have an amateur radio communication transceiver that I have used for years. Its wavelength is 40 meters, so my antenna needs to be at least 67 feet long (one half wavelength) in order to radiate and communicate with other Ham radio operators. My ham system has the power of two light bulbs and that translates with the antenna on the roof to a communication range of about a thousand miles, or on a good day maybe five thousand miles. I find the process of sending radio waves out into space to be just short of absolutely amazing! How are these radio wave vibrations passing through empty space? Maxwell gave the how with elastic electric and magnetic fields. These fields have scientifically measured properties and further he showed how these properties can be treated with the same mathematics used for spring and mass systems.

The spring mass system is so fundamental to human thinking that we analyzed electric and magnetic effects to extract that analogy. This is what we determined understanding to be, this is what makes sense to us. If it were not satisfying, we would have kept going and found another more satisfying analogy. Two things are needed for us to "understand"; first, it has to have the correct predictive powers, it has to work, second, the analogy has to feel good. We looked for and found a mathematical system that also works for mass and spring systems.

"According to Faraday and Maxwell, there are no action-at-a-distance forces; instead, all force actions are transmitted in a continuous way from one body to another through the electromagnetic field."

The electromagnetic models require support. But Space is empty. Just like Hooks law of springs, Electromagnetic models require something to push against. Since you could not see what it was, the word "ether" was invented. Ether is an "external field" that allows waves to pass within it and therefore to pass from one place to another. In a sense, the concept of ether is a buck passing scheme. Just like the question "Who created you" can be answered by "God created you", this is a buck passing scheme. It doesn't really answer the question - it just defers it to a higher level. "Who created God" re-creates the original question which we tried to duck. We can try to pass the buck again by saying "God created God" but if you consider this you can see that the question has yet to be answered. Maybe the question does not have an answer, or maybe it is a bad question. In any case it becomes a show stopper, a way to throw up our hands and say "I don't know." It becomes a breakdown of thinking and understanding. The web of comprehension breaks down and we give up. Electromagnetic models have a similar buck passing scheme and it is called "Ether." Ether is a mechanism which allows information taken as light waves to pass through empty space. Without ether you might have "action at a distance" or you might have the observer being considered "responsible" for light waves passing through space. Action at a distance is what Newton thought took place. Most scientists dismiss action at a distance as either magic or nonsense.

Maxwell's field equations require, as far as Maxwell himself was concerned, that a vacuum has some properties which are "out there" and by being "out there" help conduct these waves across space. The accuracy of Maxwell's equations are not currently in dispute. What current science rejects is the concept that empty space has any properties which might act like a spring and mass dynamic system. The modern physicist F. A. Kaempffer in his book "The Elements of Physics, A New Approach" talks about the propagation of light as consisting of emission or absorption of a light quantum or "photon." He says, "The realization that something oscillates during the propagation of a photon is, of course, quite old and led to the so-called "ether" capable of transmitting light as a wave train of oscillating mechanical stresses, similar to the transmission of seismic waves by an elastic earth." He sites that modern physicists considers the wavelength to be a property of photon spin, or the circular frequency of a rotating photon. "Thus when asked what oscillates in the propagation of a photon most modern physicists will answer: ‘The phase of the probability amplitude oscillates.’"

Maybe the question of what oscillates does not have an answer, or maybe it is a bad question. In any case "The phase of the probability amplitude oscillates" becomes a show stopper, a way to throw up our hands and say "I don't know." It becomes a breakdown of thinking and understanding. The web of comprehension breaks down and we give up. When we are given a couple of hundred years to think we can see through logic which is circular and at its nature a buck passing scheme, but now science is so new.

What modern physics does conceptually is to use particles to transmit electric and magnetic forces through space. That way they don't need any "out there" properties of empty space, and instead substitute these little tiny particles called photons. These little particles don’t exist everywhere, but they only talk about the probability of photons existing at some specific location. In this way modern physics avoids the spring and mass system as a method of understanding fields. The real question to me seems to be 1). is it better to have particles popping in and out of reality? or 2). to have properties of space that can act like a spring and mass system with respect to magnetic and electric effects? or 3) is the observer responsible for light passing through space?

Modern science has rejected "action-at-a-distance" (Newton's idea). They have also rejected Maxwell's understanding, as we shall see shortly when we get into the details of the Michelson-Morley experiment. What I object to is that science has also rejected the possibility that the observer is responsible, without even an explanation of this rejection. The outside world is assumed to be responsible, it is cause, and you are left, without choice, to be a passive observer.

Both the spring and mass system and the photon particle are "out there" type of explanations. But what if reality isn’t "out there" but directly results from our past knowledge? What if you are responsible for your awareness of what happens in the physical universe? What if you are ultimately responsible? If the purpose you had of creating a physical universe in the first place was to hide, the last idea you would have when you ran 'experiments' would be to assume you were responsible!

What does it mean that the observer is responsible for light passing through space? Suppose you were god, which means you know everything about your universe. Now some external operator comes in and shakes your object. You as observer god would know that your object was moving. You would know this directly and you would not need any ether to tell you that it was moving.

This explanation was blatantly unacceptable to the scientists of 1900! They did not want any part of being responsible for anything but taking measurements, and being a passive and controlling observer. This is why they so much loved the "ether". Unfortunately there was trouble in paradise, people were talking and doing experiments to identify and pin down this "ether", and they were not getting the answers they expected. The web of understanding was breaking down. This was serious business to people who spoke mathematics and wanted to continue to control and manipulate the world.

First you must understand, Maxwell's equations do more than just predict the existence of electromagnetic waves, they also predict the speed at which the waves move through space. Maxwell's fourth equation has two constants "m " and "e " which can be measured in the laboratory and used with the following equation to predict the speed of light!

The speed of light =

m is a constant of nature found by measuring the attenuation of a magnetic field due to the substance (like oxygen or water or a vacuum) that the magnetic field passes through. Likewise e is a constant of nature measuring attenuation of electric fields. The equation comes directly out of Maxwell's equations with a bit of calculus. Not only have scientists of the last 100 years done all these measurements for a vacuum, they have done them for oxygen, nitrogen, water, and many other substances. The measured values for m and e in these substances and the calculated values of the speed of light using the formula above agree with the experimental evidence of directly measuring the speed of light in each of these substances! Light passing through water is slower than when it passes through a vacuum. Hundreds of calculations have been made, and hundreds of experiments have been conducted, and they all agree. Maxwell was a very smart guy and everyone is impressed with his results!

Maxwell's equations were wonderful as far as the scientists were concerned, except for one small experiment which did not make sense, the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887. The idea was to measure effects of the earth's motion through the "stationary" ether that must surround the Earth. No one really knows what in the universe is stationary and without motion. We do know that the earth travels at 18 miles per second around the sun, and that it further travels at 1000 miles per hour at the equator, so that each day lasts 24 hours. We also know that the solar system circles in our galaxy the milky way at xxx (** need info here) miles per second. With all this motion that we know about, it should be possible, so the scientists thought, to measure some earth motion with respect to the "ether."

First you measure the speed of light in the direction of the earth's motion, and then you wait 12 hours and measure it again. The first measurement will have the speed of light plus the earth's rotational motion plus the speed of the earth around the sun, and the second one will have the speed of light minus the earth's rotational motion plus the speed of the earth around the sun. Second you would measure everything again in six months, when the earth is moving in the other direction around the sun. Simple enough in concept. The trouble is that the earth only moves 18 miles per second in its path in orbit around the sun, and that is a very small percentage of the 186,000 miles per second of the speed of light. Michelson and Morley had an brilliant idea on how to measure these relationships accurately enough to really give a good result. The Michelson-Morley experimental apparatus used a modified optical interferometer.

Optical interferometers, in general, measure distances very accurately by using light waves. The light waves are split into two beams and then take two paths and bounce around with mirrors and then recombine again. At the observer position the two light beams combine or interfere with one another depending on the number of wavelengths each beam completes. The differences can be used by phasing to very accurately measure distances. When two beams combine ‘in-phase’ their effects add, when they combine ‘out-of-phase’ they interfere with each other and their effects subtract. These resulting effects can be measured for beam intensity. The phase of a beam can be changed by moving the reflective mirror closer or farther away by adjusting a micrometer. Note the diagram of the Michelson-Morley apparatus:

Now suppose the earth was circling around the sun and moving from right to left. Also suppose that the ether was standing still. The diagram shows the light source pointing left to right against the direction of the motion of the earth. Therefore the speed of the light source would be against the direction of the Earth's travel, and we should be able to measure a faster speed in that direction. If we wait 6 months we are going (in the other direction) around the sun and the speeds will subtract, therefore measuring a slower speed.

To catch any result, the experiment should measure the speed of light in two directions at the same time. These directions should be at right angles to each other, and the whole experiment should rotate a few degrees to be able to take new measurements. By having two measuring directions at right angles, no mater what direction the earth is moving in, the equipment "should" detect the stationary ether.

The whole apparatus was placed on a rectangular stone about 5 feet square and one foot deep. That stone rested on a wood float twice as thick as the stone it held. The wood floated in a big pool of mercury contained in a cast iron trough. Four mirrors were mounted in each of the four corners of the stone platform. This allowed each light path to be about 35 feet long. The source was a sodium light with a wavelength of 5.9x10^-7 meters and it was mounted on one corner of the stone square. One of the mirrors had a special adjustment (called a micrometer) that allowed the whole apparatus to be very carefully balanced for phase. After measuring all distances as carefully as could be done, the special mirror was carefully adjusted with white light until colored interference fringes reappeared in white light. This made both paths the same length and the system was considered balanced out and ready for measurement.

The apparatus was turned very carefully by hand at a rate of one revolution every six minutes. Each time the system turned 21 degrees a measurement was taken. 96 measurements were taken starting at 6 am and another 96 measurements were taken starting at noon. Measurements were made during three days in July. If the ether "wind," as it was sometimes called, could be measured, that 18 miles per second would result in a fringe measurement of 0.4 wavelengths. The results were plotted, averaged, and analyzed. What they actually measured was less than a twentieth of what they expected to get. This very small measured value was below the accuracy of the experiment, so the scientists concluded that absolutely nothing was found. They were shocked and confused. How could this happen?

It was first thought that the ether at the earth's surface was carried along by the earth, adhering to the earth like the atmosphere. But Fizeau did an experiment which disproved that notion, by using an Optical interferometer filled with running water. As the speed of the water changed, no change was found in the associated speed of the light waves. Michelson also investigated whether it was possible to establish a difference in the velocity of light at different heights above the earth's surface. Perhaps the ether was attracted by gravitational or magnetic forces? But Oliver Lodge showed in 1892 that the velocity of light in the neighborhood of rapidly moving celestial bodies is not influenced in the slightest by strong electric or magnetic fields carried along by these bodies.

OK, you who are lovers - we are now deep in the mind. Yes I know this is pretty strange stuff - the logic about logic derived in a complex argument that took place 105 years ago. But these old arguments have been accepted as true - they represent the way science thinks - and they represent how we got so screwed up. If we allow these arguments to go unchallenged we just as well might accept our prison system the way it is - and to accept the hostile civility level of this culture also. I personally will not accept their version of "Truth". It has no heart. So let us be awake as we swim back to the center of the mind. Think of this situation as fish out of water - first they know Ether "must" be there - yet the best experimenters of the time could not find it. Fish out of water because they lack flexibility to see reality the way it really is. This does not mean they are not trying. Everyone was searching for an answer inside their head.

In the words of Richard Becker, "Another attempted explanation was suggested by Ritz. He sought to explain the negative result of the Michelson experiment by assuming that the velocity of light depends on the state of motion of the emitting light source such that to the velocity of light in vacuum must be vectorially added the velocity of the light source itself. We can, in fact, be readily convinced that on this assumption the Michelson experiment would indeed be explained. Against this Ritz hypothesis, however, it is first of all to be objected that the hypothesis is completely untenable from the theoretical standpoint of a field concept which describes the motion of light by a differential equation, because it cannot be understood how the velocity of propagation of light from a source located at any point of space should be related to the condition of the light source. But the hypothesis can be dismissed on purely experimental grounds, and in a rather drastic way, by observations on double stars. For a double star consisting of a central member and another member orbiting round the first, the light from the orbiting member must, according to the Ritz hypothesis, arrive at the earth with different velocities for different places in the star’s orbit. Owing to the great distance which has to be covered between star and earth, small differences in velocity would lead to large differences in travel time, so that in some cases we would perceive the rotating member at several different places in its orbit simultaneously. As was pointed out particularly by de Sitter, however, there exists not even the suggestion of such an effect. The Ritz hypothesis, moreover, is refuted by a negative result of the Michelson experiment carried out, not with an earth-bound light source, but with the light of a star. This experiment was actually carried out by Tomaschek."

The Dutch theoretical physicist H. A. Lorentz, and independently enumerated by G. F. FitzGerald, offered a new theory to explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. They reasoned that speed itself caused an object to shrink in the direction of motion. The Michelson-Morley experiment then would not detect any ether no matter how fast the earth moved in the solar system. The amount of shrinkage or contraction is given by the formula ( 1 - ( u²/c² ))^1/2 where u is the speed of the earth, and c is the speed of light ( 2.99792458 x 10⁸ meters per second ). The whole earth would be flattened in the direction of motion and likewise all things on it would likewise be flattened. Thus Lorentz claimed in his 1895 paper that the size of the effect on the whole earth would be to flatten it by two and a half inches! To me that doesn't sound like it contradicts common sense all that much.

I thought this flattening was acceptable, but many of the scientists since then have not. Max Born a brilliant and respected physicist said,

This is a clear case of mono-thinking, and we should consider the possibility of some form of pluralism. The idea of pluralism is to allow a solution that contains more than one viewpoint, it rejects a view of reality that has just "one way". It’s a close parallel to democracy rather than dictatorship. In short maybe there is a synergetic possibility that comes out of chaos. Further we might expect to start with a more personal view of what is going on and then expand it to include interpersonal relationships and other points of view. Pluralism leads to a rich multi-level understanding that is more inclusive and more flexible. To understand what might be happening we must first explore a new definition of what simple motion might be. Lets take a walk down a street and think about this. What really is motion?

First as we walk we recognize that we are in motion. We see things moving about us. Most of us come to the recognition that our viewpoint is moving down the walk way. But this is not the only conclusion we could arrive at. We could consider that we are moving the whole world past our stationary viewpoint. If we take the time to really concentrate and fall into this way of thinking, we are almost immediately pulled out because it seems so absurd. How could little old us move that big old earth?

One way to sustain that new view of motion is to consider yourself to be "observing" while the walk way is simply being "observed." You are the only causative process, the walk is dead and passive. You as observer are qualitatively different from the objects that you see go by. Simply see that you are non-physical and spiritual in nature. You are not made out of the earth you are more non-physical and God like. If you wish, you as spirit could require the earth to move before you as you remain solidly placed taking it all in. This type of conceptual management is not easy at first, but the more you practice it the easier it gets.

Suppose you can get this point of view while moving down a walkway. Why would you want to do this? First it helps to allow you to see that meaning in life comes from our interactions with other people. Second it helps to disconnect you from money grabbing materialism, and all that confusion about control. Third it is fun to do, and it can make you feel wonderful. Now suppose again you are walking, feeling yourself spiritual and viewing the earth turn beneath your feet and you meet someone else doing the same thing.

Unless you are arrogant, you will not think that the person you see walking toward you is contained in the body you see. You would see the body to be just a mechanism that allows you to speak to him or her. You can say something like "Nice day isn’t it?" and smile, or you can just walk by and look the other way. This activity takes place every day and no one thinks anything of it. Each person is in their own world, thinking their own thoughts, and living their own lives. There is no contradiction here. We are separate people, and we live in separate mental worlds. It is just a small step to think of it as extending on out to the physical universe. It is possible that each of us lives in our own physical universe, and that there are multiple physical universes existing, although we see only the one we are in. It would be arrogant if we thought the one we see is the only one that exists.

This is exactly the mistake that science is currently making. They can conceive of only one physical universe. Having made that mistake, they now have a tough job of patching up all the experimental evidence that causes a breakdown in "common sense." If you go to the public library and check out a few books on modern physics, all of the books will have a chapter or section talking about the breakdown of common sense. They all know there is a problem, but they use mathematics to brush it aside. I think it is a clear case of lack of personal responsibility and at least a lack of vision.

With the central act of physical science being an act of arrogance, it is little wonder that our society is so hostile and disrespectful of other people. This book was written to bring about a more pluralistic culture, by at least pointing out another possibility when understanding experimental data. Hopefully the entire activity of writing this book can be seen by others as an act of worship and to create a state of grace between us and the rest of humanity.

Now lets return to Max Born’s statement, "If each of two observers who are moving relative to each other can assert with equal right that he is at rest in the ether, there can be no ether." We cannot prove that you are responsible, and that you have your own physical universe, but we can show you that it is reasonable for you to assume you have your own world, and to believe it to be so. Carry out our "experiment" and go out for a walk and think about your world view. Consider the possibility that the earth moves beneath your feet. Isn't this the way it was when you were very small and "un-educated?" Consider the possibility that the outside world wanted you to "see yourself as part of the larger whole." You gave up "your" world to become part of the greater whole. This was an act of love that you chose to be very small and almost insignificant. As we grew up we learned to "understand" our place in the universe. We can now take a new path. We can understand ourselves to be God "Creator of the Universe." Wow does that feel good. I find it easier to stay awake and connected to others. This new view of reality is not arrogance, it is grace. My real connection is with you. You are God.

Don’t go overboard with this stuff, this new conception of reality. Take it with a grain of salt. Remember I am saying that the physical universe is an illusion, and that your real interaction is with other people. If you personally learn how to drop out of creating and maintaining your physical universe, you will still have to deal with other people, and they will not have changed; so in a sense nothing really important will have changed. You will still be who you are, and you will still find yourself driving to work in the morning. Of course it will now be much more interesting, and you might not want to hide your smile. ( I include this paragraph, not only because it is true, but also because I don't want crazy people following me around. One must keep a sense of perspective in all of this. There is nothing special about being God, it is just the way it is, and a closer approach to reality.)

Continue: With part three of To Worship You.