The Paradox of Matter
Thinking in the material realm limits the range of possibility of outcome until the thinker consciously thinks outside of the strictly material part of the reality spectrum. If the thinker only knew that all material in the commonly accepted material realm has an aspect of illusion to it as that which we take as physical evidence is ultimately constituted of elements that have no physical properties, he would suddenly be free of those range limits. It does not mean that there are no rules of conduct or engagement, but the self imposed borders within this spectrum are removed. As rigid as those fictitious borders are, they simply dissolve as rigidity in thinking is overcome. People love to say “you don’t know what you don’t know”, but worse they believe that if they don’t know it, then it must not exist.
There is also the matter of indoctrination, confusion and belief, and belief in contradiction to intuition or understanding. There is a pervasive sense of insecurity in people as they try to comprehend reality, to make sense of their existence. I recently spoke to a psychologist who struggles with non physical concepts. He believes there is more than just material, but is an atheist because he does not want there to be a greater consciousness. I will have to explore that with him, but it appears that he has some irrational fear of the possibility of a reality other than what he knows. It seems that people try to impose their own impressions on reality rather than being curious, observant, open minded, and reverent at such amazing things. Unlearning a lifetime of fossilised thinking might be more than most people can manage.
There is an ironic sort of humour when one looks at these issues. The fact that we are standing on a hard material surface made up of that which is not physical is a kind of joke. That we have all sorts of irrational beliefs about our reality. Being too shy to go out in public naked, but wearing Lulu Lemons because its fashionable.
I have had occasion to read The Evolution of Matter by Gustav Le Bon, I am fascinated by the meticulous adherence to the scientific method in the proof through physical means of the dissociation of matter so that no trace of it is left behind. The physicists have managed to show that even such concepts as the principle of conservation of energy is in error! (Except in a very narrow context) They have shown that all matter comes into existence and disappears again leaving no trace.
Our existence in the material world gives the impression of being on a temporal standing wave where matter comes into existence from the imponderable, lingers for a time, and then returns to the imponderable. Which means that everything we know of matter is in complete isolation, as we presently lack the ability to see beyond the ponder able. And yet, strangely enough, we use the non physical constantly in our daily lives habitually.
Idiotic Reasoning
For a while now I have been experimenting with energy conversion methods affectionately called “Free energy devices”. This description sets the mainstream scientists off into apoplectic tirades on the impossibility of free energy, while quoting the principal of Conservation of Energy and the laws of thermodynamics, after which the mocking starts. To be fair, in a certain sense they are right! In the context of a closed system... but it is sadly humorous that this level of adamant denial comes first from someone who calls himself a scientist. I always thought scientists were people who were interested in finding out the truth of everything, have an open mind, reserving judgement, investigating, replicating. But if you are starting out from the point of view “seeing is believing”, the Big Bang and other fairy tales such as “everything is chemistry” I see your difficulty.
The question I lead with is how do you define free energy? I think the problem starts with the conservation of energy in a closed system. That is the default for most people. Oh yes, but you can’t create energy out of nothing, they say. Who said anything about creating energy? And just to make matters worse I ask about Perpetual Motion! It sets of another tirade. But hold on a minute...would you say that there is movement in atoms? Yes constant movement! So if I held the oldest known rock in my hand, it has atoms in it, right? Have those atoms been moving at the same rate since they became atoms? The answer is Yes of course! Well....isn’t that perpetual motion effectively? Another tirade.
At this point we might as well agree that there is the problem of the understanding of the definitions. It has nothing to do with creating energy. It has everything to do with making available energy that is already in existence. It is about being able to have the use of more energy than you put in. Before you have another outburst, lets look at nuclear energy. You can get out much more energy than you put in. This brings us to a point where the argument is that you can measure where the energy came from in the case of nuclear energy, but some free energy devices demonstrate energy gains where the source is not obvious, and this brings us closer to the boundary of realms that may not be able to be measured with conventional equipment. As a real scientist, this only demands an investigation into an interesting phenomenon, not a denial for lack of ability. The understanding is secondary to the observation of the phenomenon.
To put it into perspective, everything that we know of our physical universe, the depth, the width and breadth is a finite bubble in a void not suspended or supported. And yet we insist on ignoring the signs that lead us to the inclination that there must be something beyond our understanding. On its own our universe appears to come from nowhere, is going nowhere, is nowhere, and is made of nothing! We just don’t believe it....I guess it is hard to believe. It certainly seems to be an incomplete picture at best.
Much like an offshore package assembly instruction sheet: insert tab A (not provided) into slot B (not shown).
Matter as a symptom of Intent
In our constant search for solutions to the universe and its origin we seem to adhere more and more to a materialistic method, more chemistry, more physics, entropy....closed and decaying systems. Yet it is ironic that the very material that we are using to interpret as an entropic system is the end of a process...an ash! But that actually gives us a massive clue that the ash, being the end of a process and entropic in nature, is part of a neg entropic process that carries on and also started from something. Entropy is like a hub cap from your car that falls off on the highway, and after a few gyrations comes to rest on the shoulder. The hub cap is not the system.
By looking at the tail end of processes it is not surprising that we find it difficult to see past the material. But there are everyday processes that show very clearly that there are at least two things at play simultaneously in many things such as plants. There is always the entropic side of the material that falls away and deteriorates, but there is something that builds up the plant as it grows. The plant seems to gain mass from a bit of water and some sunlight! Now that is not just a chemical process. Negative entropy requires more than a chemical process, as chemistry only goes down hill and ends when all reactions are spent. Nothing comes from nothing.
The part of the plant that makes no sense from a material perspective is how the matter is organized to become a certain type of plant. I defy anyone to make a dandelion out of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen and a little sunlight. What is the missing ingredient? Why a dandelion and not a rose?
Today we talk incessantly about “science”, and that science is all about cause and effect. Maybe true science should not twist its own logic to protect a preferred worldview. If science is strictly the study of cause and effect, then when the chain of causality points toward something unexpected – like an intelligent first cause or a non physical origin – science should follow the evidence where ever it leads, rather than forcing a materialistic explanation.
It seems to be false logic to use the rules within one realm to predict the rules of another, or to assume that because one can’t see another realm that yours is the only one.
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science... I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.” Max Planck
Energy
What is energy?
Energy in the physical world is a bit of a mystery. It has effects on matter but is not matter. Its effects are seen in matter as heat, light, movement, it seemingly can not be created or destroyed in physical terms. In other words we have no idea what it is! We do not know what energy is in a fundamental, physical sense. We only know how to measure it, track it, and describe how it changes matter.
It is an abstract property, you cannot isolate a pure cup of energy. You can only look at matter and measure its motion, its mass, its position, or its temperature.
Because we cannot see energy directly and are only able to see its effects on matter we have no knowledge of whether that is all there is to energy or if it is only the part we can measure.
Because we cannot look behind the curtain, physics chooses to define energy by what it does, rather than what it inherently is. To a physicist, energy is the measurement. If a theoretical “extra part” of energy has zero impact on the physical universe, physics treats it as non existent because it has no causal power. This is the classic cop out! That is where the materialist always goes when he has no more labels or can’t explain it. This shows materialism’s biggest blind spot: it defines reality strictly by what it can measure, and then claims that anything unmeasurable doesn’t exist. The dilemma is entirely self inflicted. It only exists because the materialist framework forces a category mistake: it insists on using physical, spatial, and mechanical terms to describe things that do not posses those qualities.
When you try to force the non physical through a physical lens, you get absurdities – like trying to measure the weight of a thought, find the physical location of a mathematical law, or capture a cup or “pure energy”. By forcing everything to be physical, materialism accidentally dismantles itself. It chases matter down to the smallest scale to prove its own point, only to find that the foundation of the physical world is entirely non physical. The dilemma vanishes the moment we accept that the physical is an emergent property, not the starting point. The measurable world is just the visible ripple on the surface of a vast unmeasurable ocean.
When we use energy in our machines and systems, there is a spectrum of things that on one end works against us and causes a type of drag, like trying to lift a heavy stone straight up while wheezing and sweating. On the other end everything is working for you like putting a tennis ball on a slide.
High Resistance, Dissipation and Chaos.
when a system works against you, energy is scattered rather than directed. Friction and drag between moving parts converts useful kinetic energy into ambient heat. The universal tendency of energy to disperse into disorder, (entropy) makes it harder to do structured work.
Impedance mismatch is when the driving force does not match the system’s natural traits, causing energy to bounce back or reflect instead of transferring smoothly. And turbulence is when fluid movement becomes chaotic, creating unpredictable vortices that actively drain momentum.
Low Resistance, Coherence, and Resonance.
When systems work with you, the timing, structure, and natural properties align perfectly.
Resonance is when the driving force matches the system’s natural frequency, allowing tiny inputs to create massive, effortless outputs.
When multiple waves or forces peak at the exact same time (in phase), their amplitude add together constructively instead of cancelling out.
Laminar flow is when fluid moves in smooth, parallel layers with zero mixing or internal disruption, mimicking the “tennis ball on a slide” effect.
Super fluidity or superconductivity are states where resistance drops to absolute zero, allowing energy to flow indefinitely without loss.
Now that we have come the conclusion that matter is not what it appears to be, and that energy is something that we can see indirectly through its effects on matter, we can see that our energy usage experience is mostly in the area of “high resistance and dissipation”. That is why it is not surprising that most people judge “free energy” next to Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy. But that is only because we stopped looking as soon as we found “high resistance”, just a bit further on we would have seen “superconductivity”! It almost makes you want to believe in the Tooth Fairy!
Time
Strangely enough, even though we don’t think much about it, time seems to have a relationship to matter. It is spoken of extensively by physicists as in Einstein’s theory of relativity, and in thermodynamics it is the direction of entropy, the arrow of time governed by the second law of thermodynamics. So if time moves in the direction of entropy it must be related to a closed system. We have already established that science does unwillingly acknowledge that the universe can not be a closed system, yet the global rule is that it is a closed system!
The universe as a closed system is not a sensible conclusion, but physics still carries on as if it were. It would follow then that time is also being misinterpreted if that is the case. If you apply standard physics equations to the entire universe as a “closed box,” the maths eventually breaks down or creates a dead end. Physics is struggling with time because it knows that the basis for the calculations is in error.
To me it is not a thing on its own, but a consequence of the existence of material that gives us yet another clue of the non physical qualities of matter and its subtle but still visible fluidity.