A list of abstract theories I’m researching for my next book:

• The speed of light is not the ultimate limit, the speed of spacetime is.
• Quantum theory may reveal all particles exist from the convergence of the multiverse.
• Photons are only waves that behave like particles due to the geometry of the converging multiverse.
• Sociality is a genetic property developed from evolutionary pressures.
• The wider the dynamic range an organism’s environment, the greater the genetic intelligence.
• If every particle is the net result of converging multiverse probabilities, then choice is the result of quantum entanglement across the multiverse, defining reality at every instant.
• Genetic evolution is a process divided between robust adaptation in a changing environment, and refinement in a stable environment.
• The meaning of life is to expand potential.
• The Double-Slit experiment is proof of the multiverse, both with and without measurement.

Lastly, some quotes for humanity:
• Universal Rights: The rights of any individual are equal to their maximum potential, while never affecting the rights of others.
• How can a species survive its own condition when it fails to recognize its condition?
• A society has the right to sustainable activity — without affecting the rights of any other society.
• The complexity and effectiveness of any intelligence is proportionate to the genetic intelligence that spawned it.
• Sustainability is irrefutably prerequisite for the existence of any advanced species.
• It’s our imagination that explores today, that our future explores tomorrow.


To the average person, time is a liner progression of events. In the classic model, time is the quantitative result of repeated cause & effect at set intervals. More accurately, the progression of time is not a singular motion, but a component of something much larger. When Einstein revealed spacetime to the world, we gained a greater understanding of the reality we exist in. We’ve learned that while time continues from moment to moment, we as observers may not realize that we’re also moving.

In a classic sense this movement is part physical. Sitting still, we may think no movement is apparent. However, while siting still, the earth rotates one revolution every 24 hours. The earth also orbits the sun ~once every year, and our solar system has a galactic year of ~235 million earth years with respect to the centre of our galaxy. Then there’s the movement of our galaxy in the local group, and finally, the groups movement in the Virgo supercluster and so on. We won’t include the expansion of the universe, as that’s a homogenous expansion. Simply put, we’re moving fairly fast, but not fast enough to really notice.

Spacetime is a reference to the bound relationship of space and time, just like the electric field and the magnetic field, you can’t separate the two parts. It may surprise some that spacetime has a finite limit in relativity. This is because spacetime has only two dimensions, not unlike a drawing on paper. Everything in spacetime has both a velocity in space and a velocity in time. The direction in space is irrelevant, as spacetime cares not of the direction you choose to travel. In spacetime, everything travels at the same velocity. The geometry (or path) within spacetime is where we find the interesting parts.

Those sitting still in their living room chairs are moving fairly quickly. Yes, as noted previously, we travel through the galaxy at quite a speed. Yet, nothing compared to the speed we travel through time. Think of a graph where time is set along the X-axis and space is set along the Y-axis. If you drew a horizontal line along the bottom of the X-axis to represent a single year, you might get an idea of just how fast we’re travelling through time and how slow we’re travelling though space. The limit of spacetime is represented by the length of line you drew along the X-axis. This length is unchangeable. If the top of the Y-axis represents the speed of light, and the end of the X-axis represents 1 year, how fast would you have to travel in order to change the angle of the seemingly horizontal line?

It becomes apparent just how much velocity through space is needed before we see a change in time. Basic geometry will tell you that travelling at equal velocities of space and time will place you at 211,986,245 m/s or ~474.2 million miles/hour. That’s fast enough to get you to Mars in 20 minutes. At that velocity, time will have slowed to 70.711% of normal. Of course, you wouldn’t noticed this as you travel. The only thing you might notice is while everyone on earth will know you took only 20 minutes to reach Mars, the voyage for you will have taken a little over 14 minutes. You will have travelled as fast through time as though space. Increasing velocity through space takes away velocity from time, and vice-versa.

If you think 70.711% of the speed of light is fast, it is. At that speed you can get to Pluto in just under 4 hours. Yet, it will still take you 3 years to reach Alpha Centauri — the closest star to us.

For those hoping scientists will invent a time machine, don’t hold your breath. Curved space is only a relative distortion, and all that implies.

A question I asked Neil: “While the universe goes though its homogenous expansion, what effects might this have on spacetime? If we find a way to move our spacetime velocity more towards space (and less towards time), what might we have to consider if space is expanding? Better yet, what if our measurement of the expanding universe is not a measurement of the expanding universe?… if you get what I mean.”

The implication of my last comment was this: What if the universe is not expanding, but instead, time is accelerating? What if dark energy contributes to a compound effect on time — producing an accelerated view of galaxies further away? Our local frame would appear faster than the rate of time when light from distant galaxies began their journey. Therefore, the light would seem slower (red) to us after millions of years of travel.

Are we really seeing a homogenous expansion between galaxies known as Hubble’s Constant? One thing is for sure, spacetime has a limit. Divide its components as you like, but in the end, spacetime is constant. Perhaps our position on the graph of space and time isn’t that clear. With all things relative, perhaps spacetime is slowly shifting away from space, ever closer towards the direction of time.

Sustainable Civilization

Previously, I read an article that suggested growth in human population will likely devastate the resources of earth (amongst other ill effects). This article sourced a report from a NASA-funded study on the likely collapse of a given civilization where social imbalance between the poor and the rich existed. Below the article were typical public comments. Some comments suggested overpopulation was the reason for unsustainable human activity. Interesting reasoning, if it were not completely untenable. The following was my response:

The perspective that population is the obstacle for a sustainable species is highly subjective in a social frame, and relative in a scientific frame. To point the finger at overpopulation is to suggest the Earth’s eco-system is there to absorb the punishment of humanity, and our species has simply grown too large for the earth to cope. Expectedly, the subjective nature of society is void of merit in supporting any known sustainability model. To correct any imbalance in sociality, the nature of human society must align with the principals of a sustainable model.

Universal Equilibrium will always drive towards a state of maximum entropy. It discriminates nothing — not even humans. So yes, humanity may suffer a catastrophic correction as a species; however, as sentient beings we carry the capability to protect ourselves from our own actions — much like wearing a helmet when riding a bike, or a seatbelt when driving a car. We need to put measures in place protecting us from our global activities. Identifying the 1% as the culprit for our troubles is misguided. The 1% exists as a byproduct of our current social model. How does it go?: “With great power comes great responsibility”. So ask yourself, if you had unlimited financial means, would your actions be any different than those of the 1%?

The sustainable activity of the 1% are statistically disproportionate to even a basic sustainability model. Winning the lottery is a prime example of where our society tends to take aim: big house, lots of cars, heated swimming pool… you get the picture. The truth of the matter is, those of the 1% did not win the lottery (a one-time event). They leveraged the mechanisms within society to reach excessive financial gain. The activities of those who won the lottery are somewhat dissimilar, as the underlying nature of how those individuals got to the 1% mark is part of their persona. They are there [because] they worked to get there (the journey), and that means they will use their enhanced financial means to protect that enhancement out of entitlement. No merit is being made for entitlement, just that those of the 1% have a distinct advantage to influence their position in society, and that means protecting that advantage will automatically become the first seatbelt/helmet they put in place. It’s blind human nature.

Human nature influenced from social evolution can be sustainable. Unfortunately, there are fundamental contradictions in how our current society operates. No less does it make sense for low-income housing to exist next to a casino, than it does for society to reward it’s members by reinforcing the mechanisms that spawned the 1% — suppressing the composite ability of society as a whole. It’s a self feeding cycle akin to linseed oil in a cotton rag: the more it dries, the more it heats up. It quickly boils down to Universal Rights as a species. Until universal rights are socially observed, policies of human societies will stumble reactively behind the activity of those who are charged with its welfare — and ultimately the direction of our species.



Should we contact extraterrestrial civilizations?

The question is the source of much debate, however the topics of debate might seem miscued. The fundamental answer to the question is yes, however the time and method is really where the debate should focus.

As an evolving species, our natural curiosity will ultimately answer with a unanimous yes for contact. This natural drive to explore is a function of our entropic style of sociality — the built-in function of complex organisms: expanding all possible vectors to continue ones existence. To ask if we should or not is not debatable. Our segmented cultures simply cannot prevent the inevitable action of every human. Someone somewhere will make the attempt, if not already.

The SETI program that searches for possible signals coming from intelligent life is fundamentally misguided. There are several reasons why it’s unlikely a civilization from a distant star system would transmit a signal for others to read. Aside from the mechanics of producing a signal of sufficient power to reach us, we must look to ourselves as an example in how a species of technical growth would communicate. From the time the first radio signal was invented to the complex digital multiplex radio systems used today, our progression in understanding electromagnetic signals has increased exponentially. The timeline for this to happen is a mere blink-of-an-eye in the timeframe of written communications as humans. A mere pop of static in the human timeline, and a microscopic crack in the timeline of the cosmos. If there are thousands of extraterrestrial species in our galaxy alone, the chances just one of them is at our technological stage would be minuscule.

The idea of searching for EM patterns in the cosmos is a contradiction in itself. How much effort is needed to capture the signal from one of our own probes at the edge of our solar system? Given the power needed to reach another star, we would have to wait generations for a possible reply. In that time, our exponential growth in the understanding of EM signals will have changed completely — and for the very same reason our technological understanding will untimely surpass the need for interstellar probes. The Voyageur spacecraft may never reach a distant civilization to deliver the message carved into its golden record. The exponential curve of our advancement will have us flying past it long before it reaches one quarter the distance to the nearest star.

To transmit a massive EM signal into space would be a beacon, self proclaiming our naive and stone-age status to the cosmos. The transmission power would have to be so great, it would be quickly understood as intentional, not expecting a response for hundreds of years. At that point, it’s more likely we would’ve abandoned EM signals all together — replaced by something far faster, efficient, and less harmful. The transmission would also suggest we as a species cannot anticipate our own change, that we’d be technologically frozen in time, waiting for a reply using the same method. If we reached a civilization that could read and decode the message, what are the chances they might realize a reply would be just as foolish as our call? Would they build a transmitter knowing it would take hundreds of years to reach us? Would they conclude that by the time they received the signal, we would have evolved beyond that method already — even more by the time their reply would reach us? Logically, our method of signal is the only message they need to read. Whatever’s contained in the signal would be a certification of our blunder. There’s also the chance our signal could insult the intended recipient — on the basis of expecting them to be equally naive — daring them to reply as though it were a galactic joke.

If we are to earn enough respect from possible advanced civilizations — warranting a reply, we mustn’t contradict ourselves in suggesting we have the ability to anticipate our own evolution. So how then are we to communicate with life in the cosmos if smoke-signals are passé? Research in quantum mechanics is a great direction to explore. Quantum entanglement can be used as a method for instant transmission of information. Further research may find entanglement properties that allow the encoding of messages. Perhaps the broadcast of galactic messages are already in use from entangled particles of light arriving from the stars of the night sky, or perhaps not. In either case, searching for signals in a medium fundamentally barred from galactic use is the same as building a mega-watt stereo speaker to transmit an audio message to someone miles away. Would you expect a reply in the same medium? Perhaps the clear reply will arrive in the form of police knocking at your door — a galactic response I think we’d like to avoid.

A Short Time

Whenever that day is, that is my last, I will have one clear regret. This would be the sizeable disappointment in how far humanity has advanced.

With so much potential literally squandered away by seemingly more important activities of a species far less evolved, it’s depressing to see where we could have been compared to where we are.

Is there hope for us as a species? I would like to think so. Given enough time, humanity will have every chance it needs to learn how to do everything wrong at least once — no doubt at great cost. Unfortunately, humanity as a collective organism is riddled with every type of social disease — mired in disinformation and burdened from legacy ideology — all of which is soaking wet in fear.

Humanity needs not a clean energy model from fusion, nor the return of a deity in order to solve our problems. Humanity needs only to collectively recognize each issue at hand. To have a variance in understanding, is the beginning of conflict, and the variance in understanding stems from the absence of information. For in the absence of information, subjective interpretation quickly takes its place.

How can a species survive its own condition when it fails to recognize its condition? It’s been said: “If all insects on Earth disappeared, within 50 years all life on Earth would end. If all human beings disappeared from the Earth, within 50 years all forms of life would flourish”. Ironically, of the 50 years given for life to end from the absence of insects, humans would be “voted off the island” almost immediately.

I feel shame for what’s seen today. It’s likely my hair will turn white long before the majority of humanity reaches a consensus on right & wrong. To expect change short of this point requires a global event — shedding enough social disease past the tipping point. I have hope for that day.


Without rights, we as sentient beings would resemble little more than savages — a reactive clump of animals subjugated by fear.

Social constructs aside, the fundamental rights of an individual are intrinsically present from the moment of conception. Further, these rights are without race, gender, society, culture, and are not subject by one’s origin, language, appearance, or any other variant of social or political classification. Without question, rights are biological first — and if evolved enough, social second.

At the primary level of existence, rights exist as follows: The rights of any individual are equal to their maximum potential — while never affecting the rights of others.

This one sentence has extensive implications, yet basic as a math equation. It can be considered an unbound universal constant. True to its use, dynamic in its reference. If the rights of an individual are ever in question, recall the sentence at the moment in question, and it will answer every time.