Introduction

Introduction
Dedicated to the higher self.
Why a new science?
the reader is not expected to read from start to finish
is the new science dangerous?
why now?
what is the basis of the new science?
the soul
what is the soul?
the very definition of the soul
how was the soul discovered?
Disclaimer
Dedicated to the Higher Self.
This means roughly 'God within us'. We are gods of God. The term ' higher self ' or HS for short I got from one of Shirley Maclaine's books.

Why a New Science?
Science is a way of looking at the world.
The truth, is the best-of-all-possible-ways of looking at the world, perceiving the world. Science is therefore not necessarily the truth, because there is no proof that science is the correct way of perceiving life, the universe. There is also no proof that science is looking at the world in the only possible way.

How do I know the truth is a way of perceiving the world? This is another question that will be answered later when I talk about my early life and an event I experienced called 'stopping the world'. But the point being made here is that science has no proof it is looking at the world in the only way possible to humans -- this assertion or assumption is actually the fundamental basis of the faith in an objective science, because if there is another way of perceiving the world then the claim 'the world is presenting us with the truth that we only need to uncover' is false. If there is at least two different ways of perceiving the universe then the universe is presenting us with at least two different versions of the truth.

The further point is that there is doubt, and that doubt is what the reader needs to establish in order to read on with an open and unbiased mind.

All our faith in our perception is developed from our experiences of life to date. But when a few people here and there have experiences beyond those of the majority then science should sit up and take notice. And some of these "supernatural" experiences are had by ordinary people who happened to find themselves in extraordinary or life-threatening circumstances -- one such example I use is the Granville Train Disaster in the chapter about Einstein and Newton.

As a result of unusual experiences that happened to me in my youth, I noticed that we divide our attention between the power and precision of what we do. And that observation developed into the theory that we either bias our perception toward power or toward precision, and that bias therefore determines how we perceive the world.

What this book attempts to do is introduce the precision-bias way of perceiving the world, universe. The book asserts that the precision-bias perception is the correct way to perceive the universe. But the reader should be careful to note it is touted only as the correct way of perceiving, and is not the best-of-all-possible-ways of perceiving the universe. That is to say it is just a start, and has not developed any sophistication as yet; that sophistication will of course require the input of other people if the idea gains some popularity. But each person can develop the idea to whatever level of sophistication suites them personally.
First one has to define for themselves the correct way of perceiving the universe, become a member of that way, and only then can the idea-perception be developed, enhanced, refined -- there are endless levels of sophistication possible: 'endless wholes' as per the Conclusion of this book.

As to our attention, or perception, being divided between precision and power...? If we used too much precision and not enough power in feeding food to our mouth it might take forever to feed ourselves, or it could be too difficult to raise the spoon to our mouths. If we used too much power and little precision we coul feed food up our nose or feed the mouth food when it is closed, there is also the possibility we could cut a lip or break a tooth. Some people might actually have these sorts of problems and live in constant care. As to using too much precision, I am not sure that would present a problem at all; but suggested there would be a problem as above for arguments sake. But there is no doubt using excessive power or having excessive focus on power would cause coordination and timing problems.

Or suppose we play Golf. How is precision and power divided when we play a sport such as Golf? One could try hitting putts strongly and check to see how many are holed in comparison to hitting putts mildly -- but obviously hole distance is a factor.
My guess is this is a wholly-new region of study, totally unexplored. But obviously if the hole is close the percentage of holed putts is maximized. For certain the Statistical 'Standard or Mean Distribution Curve' -- in this book the Nest-curve is touted as the superior mean Curve -- will result from a thorough study.
If one starts to focus on precision passionately and much more than usual, in any endevour, one is certain to notice one's own attention-perception division eventually. However it involves great personality change and can be dangerous. Not because it is dangerous in itself, but due to how others may react.

Please allow me to try and describe the state that science is in. There are ways in science that work but are just a bit off -- but that is hardly an exact or fully-informative statement-description of the state science is in.
The problem in science is an error of perception. A simple psychologist's puzzle can help the scientist, and lay person alike, understand the subtleties of perception -- in this case the subtleties of visual perception -- visual perception arguably the greatest sense perception we have.

Draw four plane geometric figures from left to right of the same height: a circle, a square, a triangle, and a rectangle that is slightly longer than the square.
The question we ask the person being tested is: arrange the figures from left to right in your order of preference, from what you consider the best figure to the least figure.

(1) A common way is from the largest to the smallest area: rectangle, circle, square, triangle -- the size way.

(2) There are other ways that are quite bizzare that have to do with the chief interest in a person's life. If the interest is betting on horse racing, then 'triangle' may sound like a winning horse's name and so will be first on the list, and the 'circle' reminds the person of a racetrack they like to go to, and the 'rectangle' of their second-best race meet, and finally 'square' reminds them of a losing horse.

There could be as many interpretations like this as there are different hobbies and careers that people are doing.

(3) The scientific way is to correctly identify the figures as merely geometric figures. However this mind-perception is too 'specifics' orientated, too strong, and notices three straight-line figures and one rounded figure -- no true order is possible from that point onwards because the scientific mind sees no connection between the rectilinear and the circular.
This person being tested was in a Pub, and the classification as a 'scientific perception' is a general one that can apply to many people whether practising scientists or not. The person tested put a triangle first for some reason and then the test ended due to some reason I cant recall.
The scientific perception is commonly left-brained not right-brained and this also means the political left and not the political right. This book however is about whole-brained perception and is the only correct perception as far as this book's ethos is concerned. 'Whole brain' does not mean left and right brain linkage though but is a wholly different perception.
The scientific mind has the correct approach to solving the problem but since it sees each piece in a specialized, compartmental, way it fails to find a satisfactory linkage between the four figures. For example the scientific mind will also notice the rectangle and the square have right-angles in them and the other two do not -- which is all quite true you notice but does not result in an orderly view of the universe.
Or this same left-brained approach -- incidentally the horse punter's perception was definitely creative and right-brained -- is the engineer's point of view. He is a mining engineer and has to develop a series of sieves of different sizes and the four figures represent the four kinds of rubble to be separated. Hence from this specialist viewpoint the chief interest is the widest distance across of each of the four figures. From widest to shortest maximum width: rectangle, square, triangle, circle.

(4) Now the whole-brain or qualitative -- as opposed to quantitative -- method of perception is the perception touted by this book as the best. It orders the four from most-deployed to least, from highest vitality to most lethargic:
triangle, rectangle, square, circle. This bias of perception also called Transformation Capacity the opposite or reciprocal or Inertial Capacity.

Hence we see one very simple problem has a variety of different solutions. Every solution is a different way of perceiving the world.

The scientific-culture perception at present is a mixture of the TC way and the Left way, with a predilection or bias for the Left way. Large science books, Physics and Chemistry, in their Introductory pages called this predilection the Quantitative basis of science, distinguishing it from the Qualitative basis of science -- the feeling being quality was immeasurable and belonged in the realms of Art not science.

(Just to take an aside to clarify, what I said above about power and precision is the quantitative and qualitative way also. There are many words that can be used to label the qualitative perception of the world. Also both the left and right perception of the world is power-based perception -- each a different approach to a power perception of the world.
It may help to say that a pure-power perception is the intense core of the ego described by Sigmund Freud and called the ID, whereas the less-intense surrounding ego was called by him the Superego. The Left is then a sexual-core ID with a surrounding superego of work self. The Right is a core of work with a superego of sex.
(1) and (2) above are Right, and (3) is Left -- so the first two are right and the next is left and both are power-based perceptions of life, and the last is precision based.
People have a soul, and the distortion or corruption of the soul is the ego -- perhaps more about this later.)

Now this book has measured Quality, and as such states that science should have been recognised as an Art itself. The Quantitative predilection has distorted scientific perception for hundreds of years. It was not recognised that mass (m) in the General Equation popularly known as E=mc-squared, is a quality not a quantity. This book is an attempt to correct that perceptual imbalance.
---------
Of course, I can only introduce the idea myself, its up to others to 'take up the baton and run with it'.
--------
Let's look at E=mc-squared. E is put first because of the predilection for quantity. E stands for energy and is a quantity. And energy is a power and being a power is preferred first and not velocity-squared.
The cute kitten and the powerful jungle cat -- energy is a power. The equation should have been P for Power, P=mc-squared, but calling power 'energy' is part of the distortion of scientific perception.
Power, work, energy, force, torque -- a plethora of labels suggesting different aspects of power but are they warranted or merely unnecessarily confusing?
The issue with quantitative perception is that a quantity is always merely a quantity and has no quality, has no distinctive features -- no good reason why we should define power as anything but power. But since science is a cultural mix of qualitative and quantitative perception the feeling must have developed that distinctions needed to be made.
Hence the vagueness of the differences of meaning between these five drives the student crazy -- perhaps only torque: power in a circle, is a justified label? Since there is a tedium in excessive labelling, the young mind often rebels and shuns science and so attempts are often made to make science fun, to emphasis the practical and fun side of science.

Since quality is the preferred predilection of this book then we put mass first in the equation and call it a better presentation or more logical presentation of the General Equation.
mass = Power / velocity-squared.

This equation means to say that mass is a ratio of power and velocity squared, that both power and velocity are measurable quantities but mass is the immeasurable quality, and that being so, mass has to be a number of no time or distance units, and both power and mass have to have the same units of measurement: distances divided by time all squared.

In this perceptual perspective, from this new viewpoint, mass is seen as a quality, as a behaviour ranging from great lethargy and small speed -- say an Elephant; to Vitality of small power and high speed -- say a Hummingbird.

On this qualitative perceptual-scale a great mass is like trudging slowly and with difficulty through deep snow or mud; whereas Vitality is like sprinting down the road in ultra-light joggers. The scale really proceeds from low vitality and low power, to medium vitality and great power, and finally to highest vitality and low power.
In this way I hope to have described mass as a behaviour, and specifically in this case as the behaviour of a person.

If vitality is the opposite of mass: if you throw a heavy rock that is low vitality and high-mass behaviour, and if you skip a pebble across a lake that is high vitality and low mass.

To aim for enlightenment is to aim to be the pebble not the rock. The path of enlightenment is to transform from the charging rhinocerous, to the bolting-horse released, to the soaring eagle: free and clear.
The path itself is One: whole and complete and entire; safe and sound and healthy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reader is not expected to read from start to finish.
The reader can read this work how they like, but they do not have to read from start to finish. In my life I first seek an answer to a question and then I read or look for the answer somewhere. With books I scan the material for what I am looking for. This is an eye for what is vital, and can be honed razor sharp with practise. The eagle soars and scans and then dives and carries prey back to the skies. The eagle therefore avoids indulgence in the world, which is another way of saying the eagle avoids doing anythiing superfluous. Its my opinion that to read from start to finish does not aid in comprehension. Of the writing of many books there is no end and much study wearies the body -- and if this is true, then we learn more when we stay fast and avoid the lie of pedantic precision.
The precision of what is vital is related to survival and existence itself, it is a fight for life and so has nothing to do with careful and slow action of any kind: just as in a physical fight one does not stop to study a book or smell the roses.
The search for the truth then, is a fight to survive or the search is not honest and not whole-hearted.
Is the new science dangerous?
I do not expect traditional science to take this work seriously any more than it would take UFOs seriously for example. I realize these ideas will never replace existing ideas. The aim of this book then is to reach people who are interested in an alternative way of perceiving the world, and interested in truth for its own sake.
I found alternative rules for electrical theory for example, and found I could think about electricity in both the traditional equations and with the new mindset. And this in no way was detrimental to my ability to use the traditional equations. In fact it probably helped me use the traditional equations better. I never became an electrical engineer, but that is beside the point. I think if you got stuck on some problem with the traditional equations then the ability to think another way would lessen the stress and help the engineer see the situation would not be as critical as supposed.
The design rules presented here would in no way hamper the career of any architect but would in fact aid the architect and further his career -- as far as I can see.
However this work is not a joke. It is true to say we could develop a whole new system of electrical theory for example, and that the developed theory would work as well, if not better, than the existing theory.
My aim is only to create doubt, for in doubt we have a future but in certainty we have no future. If we do not refine what we know, then we cannot progress much further than flight to the moon and a better TV set. Hence I believe the future lies in re-examination of what we already know and not in merely adding to what we already know.
The contention of this book is that knowledge is a way of perception, a method of study of the world, or a method of acting toward the world. If we keep looking at the world in the same way we will only get the same answers and only continue to develop existing theories and inventions. So there is no way forward from relying on ideas of the past.
Many of the ideas of the past were born in times when technology was less sophisticated -- is not it therefore possible those forefathers of science made errors? For example Voltaire used primitive batteries to evolve his electric theory: Voltage is proportional to Current. But it is not so much that the 'Voltaic Pile' was primitive as that his mind was exposed to fewer ideas than the minds of today. For example, advances in Psychology. And also there was not as good a reporting system on events in the world as there is today.
It is as if we are stretching the past into the future like some kind of elastic band getting thinner and thinner and in danger of snapping, the future getting harder and harder to re-invent.
However, having said that, we should know there is no true progress unless there is true social progress.
If we kill each other today but with more sophisticated killing tools -- then where is the progress? Hence I am hoping this work will not encourage scientific progress so much but that it will encourage social progress.
Although we hate to admit it, the "Nerds" are the leaders of the world in terms of intelligence, and so if the artists and technologists change their ideas then the rest will eventually follow: a kaleidoscope future for all.
Why now?
In a world of Crop Circles and worldwide Modernisation, we need a new compass to steer us into the future. Some would argue a more stringent moral compass is required -- but if that means enforcing more precise rules it would create a rebellion. What this book introduces is the love of precision, the love of what is vital, as a totally different attitude toward gaining needs. The book argues for an attitude change not more rules policed.
The meek shall inherit the earth because they get in touch with the new attitude of precision-gain of needs. It really means gaining needs by encouraging needs to be produced intrinsically. Perhaps more on this subject in 'A guide to intelligence for the complete idiot'.
What is the basis of the new science?
What humans do is order their world, shape their world, according to how they think it should be. The one way of ordering the world is to force it to conform to your wishes. The other way is to ask it to conform to your wishes. The former sees the world as an enemy and the latter sees the world as a friend. Its a choice of perception we all must make, including the scientists.
Perception falls into only those two classes. And perception can be modelled.
The model of the enemy perception is a set of concentric rings the radii given as the sine of the inverse tangent of the counting numbers and their reciprocals.
The model of the friend perception is the radii the sine of the angles 9, 18, 27, 36, 45, 54, 63, 72, 81, 90 -- the concentric rings combine into what was called a nest.
I will talk about why these diagrams represent human perception later. Suffice to say that ring area is equated with human power and ring shape with human skill or precision. And the former diagram prefers ring area and the latter prefers ring shape.
Hence the basis of the new science is to measure the universe according to the rings of the Nest.

The soul
The soul is a ball of light that surrounds the whole body. The center of the soul is roughly located in the brain -- the location not critical. The Nest just mentioned is the equatorial cross-section of the ball of light. A cross section is a view of the inside of the ball, and seeing the rings of light of which the soul is composed: an onion cut in half.
What is the soul?
The soul is the eternal self. Every person has an eternal self. The ego however is the denial of the eternal self. The ego distorts the soul and pretends the distortion is the true self.
The very definition of the soul.
One dictionary defines the soul as 'the essence of everything'. That would mean that which is essential to the existence of everything? The essential part of anything?
The soul is a way of obtaining needs naturally. This journey is from inner to outer rings of the soul in work or sex. The soul is what is vital. The outermost ring of the soul, or shell of the soul, is the most-aware, highest in intelligence, most precise in action timing-and-placement. Hence the person is whole when all their lesser-aware actions give their allegience to the most intelligent action.
This is virtually the same as saying 'give your allegiance to God'. God is the most-intelligent spirit of your spirits. And the soul is the harmony of your spirits because of the allegiance to the most intelligent spirit.
A spirit is a description of an action or feeling or thought. You could have a fast spirit or a slow spirit, a joyful spirit or a powerful spirit or a meandering spirit. The quickest spirit is represented-by the periphery-ring of the Nest.
We need all these spirits just as a car needs a gearbox so it can drive at different speeds. Some religions suppose there is only the one spirit, but without total allegiance to that spirit there is no soul. The soul itself feels like the sheen of a silver pearl looks, that is: not quite silver.
Historically mankind has been limited by the idea of only one God. This God created everything but there was no explanation of how God created it all. You see if God created all animals, then how did God make one animal more intelligent than another?
This is not such a stupid question if we realise God must be inside every created thing, then every animal, for example, would all have the one spirit of God and therefore all be able to do advanced calculus -- right?
The answer is that God for the animals is a case of Relative Maximums: like a series of hills some higher than others. Therefore the high intelligence at the top of each hill is still God to the animal or created thing but not the same for all. Therefore God is able to be relative and absolute at the same time. The one spirit-God is one and yet many.
The animals have souls of fewer shells and men have souls of more shells.
In science, the idea of the absolute one God led Albert Einstein to suppose one speed ruled the whole universe: the speed of light.
Of course, now I have to explain how light can go in circles? Our perception compartmentalizes too much: light from the sun cannot be electrons around an atom as well. That is to say, electrons are light slowed down. When light slows down it gains mass, gains power and loses speed. All matter is light slowed down.
How was the soul discovered?
As I grew up, I had visions and dreams that led to the discovery of the rings of the soul. It just happened.
I think perhaps I was closer to death or close to being retarded at every stage of my youth. This meant I had to think slowly and carefully: the guy who laughs at the joke five minutes later.
So perhaps God took pity on me and allowed me to see more?
As I got older, I decided it was a destiny chosen for me: to see more, to pass it on.
Sometimes God gives the truth to a fool. While wise people got married and made money, I was the fool thinking about atoms and stuff and neglecting to care about my personal well-being. A servant cannot be a servant if self interested, so the fool is more available to be used. And Love is not to ask self-serving questions.
Using me, God is saying we know and yet we don't know, we see and yet we are blind, and therefore to become wise we must become fools.
I think a prophet is chosen by the people of the times. These times of moon trips and skyscapers had people praying-wishing (same thing) for a prophet to make sense of it all -- congratulations you got what you ordered. In similar way, the parents (or people of his times) of Frank Lloyd Wright prayed for an architect to show how to build in the USA.
Hence, generally speaking, it appears each of us was requested by the people of the times -- perhaps our vices as well as our virtues were prayed into existence?
The "virtue" of people is to hide their vices well. Hypocritically, any hint of scandal and we refuse to listen to that prophet. Also people can lie well to themselves and others that they are doing nothing wrong. Or perhaps they are so blind they just dont see their evil?
Another important point is that I know people very well because I know myself very well, my vices and my virtues. I did not ever study psychology formally or even open a psychology textbook except briefly once or twice in forty years.
'Know Thyself' was an important part of the New-Age books of Shirley Maclaine. When we know ourselves, then we know everyone else; the more exactly we know ourselves the more precisely we know all other people.
I know all humans want to ask questions and seek answers, that it is an innate human quality. To ask and seek is forever.
This book is really from God, and not from a mere man such as myself, so do not be surprised if you find it difficult to comprehend.
Disclaimer
I may not get the science right every time. Were really on the verge of a vast unexplored universe, a vast unexplored different way of perceiving the world-universe.
All I am trying to do, is introduce that vast wilderness.

One thing I do know for sure is that the numbers of the masses of the rings of the cross-section of the soul are correct.

If God spoke to me and I mention dreams or what not, he may have been just using me to speak to you, and the dream was for you. For example that dream of the number 3009.