Electrostatic to Gravitational Force Ratio

For charged subatomic particles the electrostatic force dominates the gravitational force at least on the order of 10³⁶. A billion is 10⁹, and 10³⁶ = 10⁹⁴ or a billion times a billion times a billion times a billion. Here are the mathematical derivations using the equations for the electrostatic force and the gravitational force.

Gravitational Force			Electrostatic Force			Force Ratio
Fg= G	m1m2		Fe= ke	q1q2		Fe	=	ke		q1q2
	r2			r2		Fg		G		m1m2

Constants
k_e = 8.987551787·10⁹ N m² C^-2
G = 6.67428·10^-11 N m² kg^-2

ke	=	8.987551787·109 C-2	= 1.34659·1020 kg2 C-2
G		6.67428·10-11 kg-2

Electron mass and charge
m_e = 9.10938215(45)·10⁻³¹ kg
q_e = −1.602176487(40)·10⁻¹⁹ C

Electron Electron
Fe	= 1.34659·1020	−1.60218·10−19 × −1.60218·10−19	= 4.16562·1042
Fg		9.10938·10−31 × 9.10938·10−31

Proton mass and charge
m_p = 1.672621637(83)·10⁻²⁷ kg
q_p = 1.602176487(40)·10⁻¹⁹ C

Proton Proton
Fe	= 1.34659·1020	1.60218·10−19 × 1.60218·10−19	= 1.23556·1036
Fg		1.67262·10−27 × 1.67262·10−27

Electron Proton
Fe	= 1.34659·1020	−1.60218·10−19 × 1.60218·10−19	= -2.26867·1039
Fg		9.10938·10−31 × 1.67262·10−27

Neutron mass and charge
m_n = 1.67492729(28)·10⁻²⁷ kg
q_n = 0 C

Neutron Neutron
Fe	= 1.34659·1020	0 × 0	= 0
Fg		1.67493·10−27 × 1.67493·10−27

An Inconvenient Truth: Climate Change

Should nature prove otherwise, we must avoid cries about global warming echoing lies about WMDs, and bypass the trap of possible wrongful association from the outset. Better to set the goal of a sustainable energy future upon the defensible foundation of a preference for replacing non-renewable resources with green renewable resources, than upon an unprovable theory of man made causes of global warming. Never confuse correlations with causes, and never confuse consensus with truth. Global temperatures may fluctuate unpredictably, but oil reserves will run out.

An Inconvenient Truth: UFOs

"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France.

Consensus holds no monopoly on the truth. It is human nature to seek validation of our beliefs and prejudices over accepting the truth. Dozens of ideas submitted to President Obama's Citizen's Briefing Book advocate UFO disclosure, and many more comments proclaim that we can handle the truth. If it is not what we expect to hear, can we really handle the truth? Many of the ideas and comments already anticipate disclosure of the existence of extraterrestrials, but what if the truth about UFOs is far more exotic, but mundane? Let's put our ability to handle the truth to the test.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." – Max Planck

Consistency between theory and facts is a far better predictor of truth than consensus. A consistent and comprehensive scientific explanation does exist of a natural, albeit rare, cause for genuine UFO phenomenon, and I'll bet you can't handle it. First of all, you can't handle it because the idea is unfamiliar. Familiarity breeds understanding, whereas ignorance is self perpetuating. The natural explanation for UFOs is: antimatter meteors. If you haven't stopped reading you are already in the minority. My bet is secure. So for the rest of you, let me explain how antimatter meteors are consistent with most if not all observed UFO phenomena, and then I'll explain why each UFO vested interest won't accept it as the truth.

Antimatter Concepts

Matter is composed of protons, electrons, and neutrons. Antimatter is composed of the antiparticles of matter: antiprotons, positrons, and antineutrons. Particle-antiparticle pairs exhibit equal and opposite properties of electric charge and magnetic moment, but identical mass. Mass and energy are equivalent from Einstein's famous equation, E = mc², where energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. A particle-antiparticle pair annihilate each other and produce two gamma rays, high energy photons above the range of x-rays. In the other direction, pair production is the transformation of energy into a particle-antiparticle pair.

No Debris Remains at Crash Sites

When antimatter meteors enter Earth's atmosphere, electrons annihilate positrons, protons annihilate antiprotons, and free antineutrons decay into positrons and antiprotons, which get annihilated as stated above. The end result is that the mass of antimatter meteors is completely transformed into energy and leaves behind no physical trace to retrieve as evidence.

Reflective Metallic Surface

Electrons are attracted by the electrostatic force to surface positrons of antimatter meteors, but electrons repel each other by the same force. In Earth's vicinity, electrons form a reflective bubble around antimatter. Valence electrons give metal the look of a mirrored surface. Mirrored orbs fitting this description appear in NASA video taken during STS-37 and STS-51A shuttle missions. The electron bubble appears to pop and reform in the STS-51A video revealing this bubble like property.

Cloud Like Surface

Water molecules are electric dipoles. The negative end of water vapor dipoles is attracted to positrons, which are positive. When antimatter surface positrons are annihilated they leave behind antiprotons, the positive end of water vapor dipoles is attracted to antiprotons, which are negative. Water vapor therefore condenses around antimatter meteors that then appear cloud like in high humidity environments. In low humidity environments like Mexico City the metallic surface phenomena prevails.

Glowing Lights

When matter and antimatter annihilate each other the result is ionizing gamma radiation. Gamma rays are outside the visible spectrum, but with Compton scattering air molecules absorb and emit photons of specific wavelengths. The result is aurora like light effects in the vicinity of antimatter meteors glowing in the emission spectrum of air molecules, predominantly nitrogen and degenerate atoms due to annihilations down to hydrogen.

Energy Beams

When electrons are annihilated in the air surrounding antimatter meteors the residual positive ions become electron attractors. When electrons flow toward this positive electric potential a cascading electrostatic discharge happens in the form of lightning. Electrons flow through gas in florescent and neon tubes and stimulate the emission of photons, which is the same process in air around antimatter meteors due to electrostatic discharges. Electrostatic discharges will occur between ground and an antimatter meteor, or between a person standing on the ground and an antimatter meteor, or between an antimatter meteor and an airborne object.

Passengers Seen on Board

Any human observer looking at a spheroidal antimatter meteor surrounded by an electron bubble will see a distorted smaller image of themselves. Look at the back of a spoon bowl for comparison. The reflective quality of some UFOs has been described as a dull metallic gray finish, rather than shiny like a spoon. The shininess is a factor of the electron bubble density.

Windows Seen in Crafts

The reflective electron bubble will reflect anything in the surrounding environment. At night, people on the ground will see reflected lights around them. At night streetlights, car headlights and taillights, and light showing through building windows reflect in the electron bubble giving the impression of windows in an airborne craft. Regularly spaced streetlights give the impression of regularly spaced windows.

Disrupting Electronics

Because antimatter positrons annihilate electrons, an antimatter meteor near the Earth's surface will disturb electric ground and disrupt electric currents. When an aircraft is hit by lightning the electronics are interrupted. This is a similar effect. Ten ballistic missiles malfunctioned at Malmstrom Air Force Base in conjunction with the report of a "glowing red object" overhead, which is consistent with an antimatter meteor disrupting electric ground in a localized area.

Radar Reflections

Electromagnetic radiation does not distinguish between matter and antimatter. A metallic antimatter meteor will reflect radar microwaves. However, an electron bubble surrounding a non-metallic antimatter meteor will also reflect microwaves, but the electron bubble can pop and reform making radar reflections erratic. Over time a stationary antimatter meteor will dissolve by annihilations and disappear. See hovering and breakneck accelerations below, also observed on radar.

Hovering

Hovering is commonly observed in insects, hummingbirds, and helicopters. But also consider a bird or balloon riding hot air thermals. Particle-antiparticle pairs exhibit opposite values of electrostatic charge, positive and negative, and magnetic moment, north-south pole alignment. For symmetry to fully apply, and in agreement with UFO observations, matter and antimatter may also exhibit opposite values of gravitation, gravity and antigravity.

When a matter meteor enters Earth's gravitational pull, it accelerates and burns up due to air resistance and exhibits a debris tail. In NASA STS-80 space shuttle video a bright UFO enters frame and into Earth's atmosphere, decelerates, hovers and then adopts the rotation of the Earth above cloud level. A second UFO suddenly appears from nowhere in center frame and follows a parallel course. The distance between the object and space shuttle camera is greater than the distance between Seattle and Portland, a three hour freeway drive. No debris tail is observed.

Matter antimatter annihilations produce gamma radiation and explain the sudden appearance and continuous brightness via Compton scattering of a far away object, after the antimatter meteor enters Earth's atmosphere. Deceleration is explained by antigravity and air resistance. No debris tail is explained by annihilations rather that vaporizing disintegration that matter exhibits.

Matter gravitationally attracts matter. By symmetry, antimatter must gravitationally attract antimatter. The gravitational force between matter and antimatter must be one of three possibilities: attracting, repelling, or nullifying. Observational evidence indicates that UFOs somehow resist gravity. Opposite symmetrical electrostatic and magnetic properties are the rule in particle-antiparticle pair production. Opposite symmetrical gravitational forces are not outside the realm of possibility, and are consistent with the observed properties of UFOs.

Breakneck Accelerations

At the level of protons and electrons, the electrostatic force dominates the gravitational force by orders of magnitude in the range of ten to the thirty-sixth, or a billion times a billion times a billion times a billion. When sufficient antimatter positrons are annihilated by electrons, the remaining antimatter antiprotons are negatively charged. In the vicinity or a large negative electrostatic potential like the Earth or lightning, predominantly antiproton antimatter is electrostatically repelled far beyond the comparatively weak gravitational force of the Earth. Breakneck accelerations are often reported in the vertical direction away from the Earth. Jet Stream air currents, wind shear, and micro-bursts can propel antimatter to enormous speeds by just going with the air flow. Antimatter meteors are not immune to air resistance, but seek equilibrium within their surrounding medium like a balloon.

Right Angle Turns

Atmospheric air currents are layered. Hot air balloons navigate but vertical displacement out of and into these different air currents, which cause changes in direction. In addition, antimatter meteors exhibit antigravity properties, which we observe as frictionless motion like an air hockey puck floating on a cushion of air. Out-gassing or electrostatic forces can impart a transverse impetus to the direction of travel making right angle turns possible, which does not violate Newtonian laws of motion, since a transverse force is responsible. The intensity of gamma radiation produced by matter antimatter annihilations makes antimatter meteors appear larger and closer than they need to be to remain visible. Momentum is a function of mass. The momentum of a small mass antimatter meteor is easier to redirect than a larger mass.

Flying Saucer Shape

Some UFOs appear saucer shaped with a bulge in the center. Magnetic field lines around an antimatter ferrous asteroid take on the configuration of the Van Allen radiation belts around Earth. It is therefore possible that electrically charged particles trapped in the toroid shaped magnetic field lines appear to represent the surface of a saucer shaped craft. Alternatively, when antimatter meteors break apart antigravity binds the antimatter pieces together, while collectively opposing gravity. Therefore the antimatter pieces can take on a rings-of-Saturn configuration. Form an electron bubble around this internal structure and you get a flying saucer shape.

Formations

Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 broke up into a string of smaller comets and collided with Jupiter in 1994. An antimatter meteor can be composed of any chemistry found in matter. An antimatter meteor can break up into many formations: a string of beads, mutually attracting bodies like a solar system or ring held together by antigravity, or mutually repelling objects like a star burst pattern when the electrostatic charge of ions repel each other by sudden changes as ions are formed or destroyed due to ionizing gamma radiation and annihilations.

Seemingly Intelligent Behavior

The non-ballistic trajectory of antimatter in a gravitational field, subject to air currents and out-gassing, gives the appearance and sense of intelligence where none exists. In the case of antimatter meteors, intelligence resides in the observer or subject, not in the object. Antimatter meteors pass the UFO equivalent of the Turing Test for Artificial Intelligence.

The NASA STS-75 "Tether Incident" is heralded by ufologists as the best evidence for the existence of extraterrestrials to date. Elsewhere in my blog I cross examine this evidence and support my conclusion that video tube and zoom lens artifacts record out of focus foreground ice crystals of water vented from the space shuttle in microgravity subject to solar radiation and shadows, and the human eye confuses luminosity for opacity, which logic dictates is incorrect. For full details see my blog entry.

Ball Lightning

Antimatter meteors are composed of the same stuff as interplanetary matter. In the intense heat of gamma radiation, antimatter comets vaporize into droplets. The increased surface area and therefore air fuel mixture increases the rate of annihilations and ionizing gamma radiation produced. The result is a hovering, glowing, sputtering object that produces heat from gamma radiation and emits light by Compton scattering. Ball lightning rides air currents but exhibits antigravity properties like that postulated for antimatter.

Crop Circles

The initial description of crop circles is a circular depression of crops. Ionizing gamma radiation destroys cellular structures and molecular bonds. Over exposure is lethal to biological organisms. Weakened plant stems then crumple to the ground. More complex crop circle patterns are therefore man made hoaxes, which have been demonstrated.

"Alien" bodies

Ionizing gamma radiation causes burns worse than sunburn. First, second, and third degree burns increase in severity, and can be lethal. So called crash victims suffer third degree burns. Some people experiencing close encounters suffer radiation poisoning. Antimatter meteors appear like shiny Christmas tree ornaments surrounded by glowing lights. Bodies are invariably described as short, which is consistent with children that curiosity killed.

Mutilated Cows

Most people seek shelter at night, whereas herds of cows are not sheltered at night. The night sky is exposed to meteor strikes. Antimatter is indigestible, so any living organism eating or being hit by antimatter is doomed to mutilation.

Abductions and Lost Time

Antimatter meteors disrupt electrical processes including biological nervous systems. Getting struck by lightning can stop a heart, breathing, and brain activity. A concussion can interrupt the mental capacity to store long term memory. This gap in memory can never be restored. The human mind fills in mental gaps to supply the missing information. False memories are the result. The initial cause is interruption of brain activity, which can be caused the disruption of electrical processes of the brain by antimatter meteors.

Secrecy

Government cover ups of UFOs have taken on many forms over the years. At first UFO phenomena was misunderstood. The Air Force mandate to protect American airspace was violated by UFOs. UFOs killed humans by gamma radiation, and the bodies were recovered and examined. At that stage the motive behind the UFO cover up was to stave off public panic. All evidence was sequestered to determine the truth about UFOs. When the truth of antimatter meteors was uncovered, secrecy took on a new mission. More secrecy surrounds antigravity research than the Manhattan project, which created the atomic bomb. Now nations all over the world have nukes. Disinformation surrounding antigravity is intended to prevent enemy states from connecting the dots and discovering that antimatter has antigravity properties, and developing antigravity vehicles.

Motives for Rejection

The truth concerning the antimatter meteor hypothesis is hard to handle for a number of reasons by different vested interests. Here are many of those reasons. "Don't confuse me with the facts. I have my mind made up."

ET Buffs

People who want to believe that interstellar tourists are visiting Earth will reject the antimatter meteor hypothesis since it provides a consistent and comprehensive explanation for most if not all observations concerning UFOs. That leaves little if any reason to support the ET hypothesis.

Whereas the antimatter meteor hypothesis does not preclude the existence of ET, it does commandeer most if not all the circumstantial evidence. Many who want to believe in ET hope that ET tech will save us from ourselves. Antimatter technology may help that cause, however the best possible policy in all circumstances is for us to rely on our own ingenuity to save ourselves.

Skeptics

Skeptics have served in the role of the inquisition for orthodox science concerning the UFO heresy. Ridicule and condescension have been their weapons. On the one hand the antimatter meteor hypothesis does provide a scientific explanation. However, acceptance of the antimatter meteor hypothesis is an admission of guilt that skeptics have served as obstructionists where truth is concerned, which violates the tenets of the scientific method they so fervently defend.

Scientific Peer Review Publications

The requirements for acceptance of a new theory by scientific peer review publications is to prove why the standard model is incorrect, and to provide mathematical proof of an alternate explanation. Antigravity as a minus sign in Newton's gravitational equations is not acceptable. Antimatter can only be contained within a vacuum, and as such is in short supply possibly only located at Area 51 if anywhere on Earth. Therefore the antimatter meteor hypothesis is speculative and as such is rejected by scientific peer review publications.

Astrophysicists

Many a tenured reputation has been built upon the counter intuitive assumption that a disparity of matter and antimatter exists in the universe. The antimatter meteor hypothesis is predicated upon the premise that parity does exists between matter and antimatter in the universe. This calls into question the Big Bang, which has been at the heart of cosmologists' reputation for over half a century. Einstein, for one, never endorsed the Big Bang idea. For an alternate cosmology consistent with the parity of matter and antimatter see my blog and website.

Scientists

The scientific establishment loses face in a big way should the antimatter meteor hypothesis prove true. Confirmation will expose the fact that the hardest of the hard sciences, physics, is not immune from errors of analysis, self deception, and hubris. The Big Bang will come to be known by future generations as this generation's equivalent of the medieval debate over how many angles can dance on the head of a pin. It will shake science to its core. The scientific method will be proven fallible, and common people will come to look upon scientists and scientific theories with skepticism and dismissal, whether or not it is deserved.

Black Ops

The ET debate has served well as a cover for secrecy regarding antigravity technology. The intended target of disinformation campaigns is for any competing group to spend valuable time and resources on dead end technological quests. Bob Lazar claimed that atomic element 115 exhibits antigravity properties, and that he gained that knowledge from classified documents he read at a facility near Area 51.

Corporations

Truth is the enemy of secrecy and vice versa. Corporations rely on patents, trade secrets, proprietary information, and non disclosure agreements to stifle competition. The disclosure that secrecy has prevented the commercial development of antimatter technology, with huge energy saving potential, will raise the question whether government and legal support for corporate secrecy violates the public interest and possibly the very survival of the human race.

UFO Investigators

Full disclosure will threaten the livelihood of these researchers. Self interest dictates that they therefore don't want the antimatter meteor hypothesis to be true.

Cable Program Producers

Many cable TV shows will suddenly have no value when the antimatter meteor hypothesis is generally accepted by the public. The economic interests of producers for these shows will lose earning power.

Conclusions

The antimatter meteor hypothesis may lack consensus, but it is consistent and comprehensive in its ability to explain the observed behavior of UFOs. As such, the antimatter meteor hypothesis is the only viable explanation for UFOs to date. Extraterrestrial vehicles begs the question of underlying technology. Any craft that emits gamma radiation is an incompetent design, which repudiates the probability of intelligent manufacture.

When it comes to making decisions, people routinely choose popularity over rigorous analysis, and familiarity over critical thinking. When the truth is inconvenient, we opt for convenience. CYA is human nature.

However, we measure progress by how well our theories match reality. Suppose the experts have it all wrong. How do we correct entrenched mistakes and overcome inertial resistance? It's not clear science or the scientific method has the answer to that one. It's not clear any other discipline has an answer either. Ignorance is bliss, but now you've encountered an alternate explanation for UFOs. Should you ever encounter a levitating, reflecting, glowing object and despite a temptation to reach out and touch it, recall my advice. Don't. CYA is human nature. Truth transcends context.

Primordial Construct: Rules of Reason

Four productive methods of reasoning exist: deductive, inductive, abductive, and analogy. Fallacious reasoning also exists, but we won’t consider that here. For consistency of form let's refer to analogy by the term associative, then we have the following Primordial Construct that governs the rules of reason.

Retrospective «	Perspective Δ	Prospective »
	Associative N	Objective ↑
Deductive –	Adaptive/Manipulative ≈	Inductive +
Subjective ↓	Abductive $

Retrospective « Rule↔Cause→Effect	Perspective Δ Rule↔Cause→Effect	Prospective » Rule↔Cause→Effect
	Associative N Rule	Objective ↑ Rule↔Cause→Effect
Deductive – Cause	Adaptive/Manipulative ≈ Rule↔Cause→Effect	Inductive + Cause
Subjective ↓ Rule↔Cause→Effect	Abductive $ Effect

Reasoning	Given	Recall	Infer	Practitioners
– deductive	Δ Cause	« Rule	» Effect	mathematicians, scientists
$ abductive	Δ Effect	« Cause	» Cause	detectives, diagnosticians
+ inductive	Δ Cause	« Effect	» Rule	lawyers, artists
N associative	Δ Rule	« Cause	» Cause	preachers, politicians
≈ inference	Rule↔Cause→Effect			teachers, negotiators

Deductive Reasoning

For deductive reasoning a given perspective cause lead us to recall a retrospective rule to infer a prospective effect. For example, given the cause of two plus two a mathematician recalls the addition rule with an effect of four. Scientists use a toolkit of known rules to explain cause and effect relationships. For instance, the classification scheme for living organisms is know as a taxonomy. Rules govern the taxonomy. Giving live birth infers a mammal, the cause and effect of deductive reasoning.

Abductive Reasoning

For abductive reasoning a given perspective effect lead us to recall a retrospective cause to infer a prospective cause. Given the effect of a victim detectives determine the general cause and then try to find the specific cause: Who done it. Diagnosticians are trained professionals like doctors or computer technicians. Given the effect of symptoms a specific cause is sought based upon known causes that produce similar effects.

Inductive Reasoning

For inductive reasoning a given perspective cause lead us to recall a retrospective effect to infer a prospective rule. Lawyers and artists use inductive reasoning, where a deliberate or accidental effect stimulus is produced in an attempt to elicit a sought after response in other people, where causes are keys that unlock access to the universal rule. In rare cases, scientists discover new rules. Isaac Newton took the effects of astronomical observations and discovered the rule of gravitation expressed as a mathematical equation, the same equation used by modern rocket scientists to navigate spacecraft around the solar system, but discovery is more an art than a science.

Associative Reasoning

For associative reasoning a given perspective rule lead us to recall a retrospective cause to infer a prospective cause. Preachers and politicians use analogies to link one cause to another cause: parables that describe moral lessons of life, or guilt by association.

Inferential Reasoning

The goal of inferential reasoning is to establish common sets of rules, causes, and effects. Teachers and negotiators try to lead the way to common ground through inference to the best possible explanation.

To be effective, all the reasoning methods combined must support an unequivocally true conclusion.

Primordial Construct: Satisfied vs. Frustrated Needs

Satisfied / Frustrated Needs

Known « Unknown	Trial Δ Error	Possible » Impossible
	Good N Bad	True ↑ False
Consistent – Inconsistent	Harmony ≈ Discord	Consensus + Dissension
Right ↓ Wrong	Have $ Have Not

Human Dimensions

Old « Death	Now Δ Life	New » Birth
	Spiritual N Spirit	Public ↑ Others
Mental – Mind	Personality ≈ Soul	Emotional + Heart
Private ↓ Self	Physical $ Body

Primordial Construct: IF Qualifier Statements

Here we have a table of ‘I’ ‘F’ qualifier statements and their corresponding reasoning methods. Notice ‘In fact’ and ‘It’s your fault’ have no valid reasoning methods associated with them. ‘In fact’ conclusions result from the compatibility of consensus opinions, and ‘It’s your fault’ conclusions result from the incompatibility of opinion differences or misunderstandings.

In feedback «	In fashion Δ	In the future »
	Is a form of N Associative	In fact ↑
If...then – Deductive	It follows ≈	I feel + Inductive
It's your fault ↓	I've found $ Abductive

To be effective, all the reasoning methods combined must support an unequivocally true conclusion. Here we see two lines of reasoning that use ‘IF’ statement cycles to reach a conclusion. The arguments cycle counterclockwise around the reasoning methods, and then conclude in the center. Primordial Construct symbols mark progress around the cycle. The two lines of reasoning differ in that one is rhetorical, heading toward ‘It’s your fault’, while the other is analytical, heading toward ‘In fact.’ Let's begin with the rhetorical cycle first.

Rhetorical IF Cycle
$	I’ve found compelling reasons to believe interstellar tourists are visiting Earth.	UFOs
+	I feel that interstellar tourists are visiting Earth due to anecdotal evidence.	reports
N	Perhaps a UFO is a form of interstellar tourist visiting Earth.	feasibility
–	If interstellar tourists are visiting Earth, then the implications are...	cover up
≈	It follows that interstellar tourists are visiting Earth.	UFOs?

Here’s a line of reasoning trying to conclude that interstellar tourists are visiting Earth. It begins in the south with observational evidence that UFOs exhibit unnatural motion that presumably can only be explained by control from an intelligent agent. In abductive reasoning we infer the unknown cause from the effect and a known cause. Appearance of UFOs predated human development of the necessary and sufficient technology, therefore some non human intelligent agent must control UFOs. From south we go counterclockwise to plus, where we consider the many reports of anecdotal evidence, including human observations, radar detection, photographic images, and video. The reinforcement of similar testimony tips the scale in inductive reasoning as we infer the responsible cause and rule from multiple effects.

From plus we go counterclockwise to north, where we reason by analogy that since humans can send spacecraft beyond the solar system, with more advanced technology interstellar travel is theoretically possible, and other, more advanced, intelligent agents might have already reached Earth. From north we go counterclockwise to minus, where we consider the implications. If interstellar tourists are visiting Earth, then what? If proof exists, then there must be a government cover up. Moving to the center, what can we conclude overall, besides UFOs are being observed?

If we are to debate this line of reasoning, where are the weak points? A rhetorical argument is tried in the court of public opinion, not fact, and a rhetorical argument is divisive by nature. UFOs and interstellar tourists are used as synonyms, which they are not. Man made objects may be misidentified as UFOs, and natural phenomena may be misidentified as UFOs, while some UFOs may be rare natural phenomena, for instance antimatter with antigravity properties that I've hypothesized in other blogs. How many, if any, UFOs are interstellar tourists is unknown. An argument from ignorance cannot be proved or disproved. Like the scales of justice, rhetorical evidence reinforces a position to produce a convincing argument. Lawyers and politicians often resort to rhetorical arguments to convince juries and constituents. Lawyers sell justice, whereas politicians sell an ideology to infer a future effect of peace and prosperity. Artists and musicians also aim to connect a produced effect to a general rule on an emotional or spiritual level. And the majority of women tend to communicate on an emotional level, within context.

The evidence supporting male female differences, shows a definite sex bias between deductive and inductive reasoning. According to temperament tests, male respondents show a sixty:forty preference for thinking over feeling, whereas female respondents show a sixty:forty preference for feeling over thinking. Thinking corresponds to deductive reasoning, and feeling corresponds to inductive reasoning. But temperament tests are of questionable merit because expressions of temperament are situational. To some degree we all use each of these reasoning methods depending upon circumstances, and past experience.

Analytical IF Cycle
+	I feel that an antimatter hypothesis is testable.	hypothesis
N	Perhaps antimatter exhibits a form of antigravity.	falsifiability
–	If antimatter has antigravity properties, then the implications are...	predictions
$	I’ve found incontrovertible evidence that antimatter exists, which is...	validation
+	It follows that antimatter does exist.	conclusion

The majority of men tend to use analytical arguments to convince peers by connecting a general rule to a specific effect. Here’s a line of reasoning trying to conclude that antimatter exists. It begins at plus with a hypothesis. We assume that gravitational forces exhibit symmetry just like electrostatic and magnetic forces. From plus we go counterclockwise to north, where we formulate a testable hypothesis. Perhaps antimatter exhibits a form of antigravity, so we can test antimatter for antigravity properties. From north we go counterclockwise to minus, where we consider the implications of antimatter with antigravity properties, which I've covered in other blogs. From minus we go counterclockwise to south, where we look for incontrovertible evidence.

So where’s the incontrovertible evidence for antimatter? Out testable hypothesis links antigravity with antimatter, but antimatter is rare by Earth standards, so we have none, or maybe some is hidden away at Area 51. The only way to preserve antimatter on Earth is sealed inside a vacuum, but finding naturally occurring antimatter implies antimatter planetary nebula, supernovas, black holes, and galaxies. Astronomical observations should be able to confirm anomalous interactions between matter and antimatter, between gravity and antigravity. Heck, if the rings of Saturn are made from antimatter, then that may explain their endurance. Or we might just capture antimatter in Earth orbit, or in Earth’s atmosphere, now that we have an idea about what we’re looking for.

Why Men don't Ask for Directions

Science Court
Science deals in true or false, but the law deals in right or wrong. Science leans heavily on deductive reasoning. Law leans heavily on inductive reasoning. The majority of men are predisposed to deductive reasoning, while the majority of women are predisposed to inductive reasoning. Carefully consider this argument that a couple might experience, when a woman says, ‘We never go out anymore.’ In response, her male companion recalls that the last time they went out together was two weeks prior, so he concludes her statement is false, so he thinks to himself, ‘Now what did I do.’ Feeling under attack he responds by counterattacking with, ‘You’re always exaggerating,’ or some such nonsense, and their argument escalates.

Now to prevent this communication failure in the first place the woman could have said, ‘We never go out anymore, since a couple of weeks ago.’ This qualifies her statement and overcomes the objection of being obviously false, but the man then wonders, ‘So,’ or, ‘What’s the point?’ Which is progress. At least he understands a point was intended, which he completely misread in the original version, when he felt blamed for something he didn’t do, which missed the point by a mile.

So how does a woman achieve the best of both possible worlds: conveying her point without seeming to make false accusations? Try this simple trick. ‘I feel we never go out anymore,’ is a true statement. There’s no arguing about the way a woman genuinely feels. It also conveys her feelings, which are hard to express in words, and implies that she doesn’t like feeling that way. These are natural conclusions a man might draw, and since men like to fix things, it gives him the opportunity to do or suggest something that might remedy the situation. And best of all it avoids an argument, so long as the woman refrains from countering with, ‘That’s a stupid idea.’

So let’s reexamine our couple’s dilemma using the Rules of Reason model. The woman began by saying, ‘We never go out anymore.’ Women are typically inductive, so let’s look at inductive reasoning in the table, and we see listed under given: cause. The effect is feeling upset. So what’s the cause and the rule? She decides the cause is cabin fever, and the rule is insufficient social outlets. But when her male companion hears her statement, how does he interpret it? Men are typically deductive, so let’s look at deductive reasoning in the table, and we see under given: cause. From a rule and a cause he can infer an effect. Her statement is a rule, and he infers the effect is that she is feeling upset, but what’s the cause? It has something to do with ‘we,’ so he takes it personally and infers that she is accusing him of being the cause, which triggers a subjective reaction, with unintended destructive consequences.

Let’s look at the revised statement, ‘I feel we never go out anymore.’ Is it a cause or an effect? It’s a rule, an objective statement of fact, in which ‘we never go out anymore’ is a metaphor for the way she is feeling. Her male companion correctly identifies this as an effect, but the cause is not taken personally because the focus is on ‘I’ not ‘we.’ He infers that a new cause is in order to produce a more desirable effect, triggering an objective reaction, with intended constructive consequences.

So what have we learned? Women typically think in inductive terms. The input of induction is an effect, which can be her feelings. The output of induction is a rule, which she expresses to her friends. Girlfriends understand this instinctively and apply the rule to their own experiences. Through analogy girlfriends communicate similar personal experiences. Misery loves company. However, men take a rule and infer an effect, which is her feelings. She’s feeling dissatisfied. He also infers a cause. Instead of relating to her feelings he infers that the cause is him and he feels blamed. To bypass male deduction, a woman needs to communicate objective rules not subjective rules. ‘I feel’ statements do this by turning a subjective rule into an objective fact.

What about advice for men, when communicating with women? To be fair, male speech misfires at times too. Men tend to express opinion as fact, and men typically think in deductive terms. The input of deduction is a rule. For women rules tend to be truisms about relationships, old wives tales and such, but for men rules tend to be ideas. With ideas as the input, the output of effects is sterile and unemotional, like a mathematician’s calculations. This gives deduction the impression of objective facts, rather than subjective opinion or statements of reason.

A man might say, ‘You should do this,’ rather than, ‘If this is your problem, then this might fix it.’ The prior statement gets the bum wrap that men don’t listen, because it’s in the form of a command, which sounds like an objective fact. By explicitly restating what he understands the problem to be, in the latter statement, he overcomes this perception, because it’s in cause and effect form. Now his understanding of the problem can be disputed, as well as the validity of his stated rule. An incorrect premise can lead to an incorrect conclusion. A conclusion cannot be refuted without being able to discredit the thought process that inferred it. ‘If then’ statements bring transparency to men’s thought process, as ‘I feel’ statements lend transparency to women’s thought process.

Otherwise, deduction gives the impression that men lack feelings, or the capacity to express them, or as an attack on a woman’s feelings. However, feelings reside in the realm of induction, not deduction. So deduction is unemotional, while men who lack inductive skills lack a means to express emotions. Analogy is middle ground in the battle of the sexes, which is the realm of empathy. Discussing common interests is a win-win situation. The other middle ground is abduction, where problem diagnosis takes place.

So now we have the background to diagnose some deep mysteries about men and women. For instance, ‘Why don’t men stop to ask for directions?’ The answer is elementary. Deductive reasoning is a process of elimination. It’s divide and conquer. When all else fails the backup plan is trial and error. Not all problems can be solved deductively. We can only explain things that we know rules to explain. When the rules we know are inadequate then we need to discover new rules. Deductive reasoning is not a rule making process, but a rule application process. The deductive reasoning mode suffers from self perpetuating ignorance, often to epidemic proportions. From the outside it’s obvious when a man gets lost, but from the inside a man is oblivious to the symptoms, until he runs out of options.

This mystery could just as easily be reworded in the female context, ‘Why do women feel compelled to stop and ask for directions?’ The answer is elementary too. Inductive reasoning is a process of reinforcement. Surveys are an example. The more responses we collect the greater the accuracy. That’s why girlfriends compare notes on relationship issues: to reach a consensus on what’s really happening. For us, the usefulness of this model extends well beyond sex roles.

Primordial Construct: Baseball

Tradition «	Game Time Δ	Glory »
	Umpires N	Fans ↑
Players –	Game ≈	Teams +
Managers ↓	Field $

Primordial Construct: Chemistry

Exothermic «	Heat Δ	Endothermic »
	Gas N	Molecules ↑
Plasma –	Bonds ≈	Liquid +
Atoms ↓	Solid $

Gistmass Ubiquity Theory

A comparative analysis of paradigms, from ancient through modern sources, reveals a unified, ubiquitous pattern underlying reality. At the core of existence, one elemental set of building blocks appears pervasive, and research indicates that many generations have interpreted and transcribed this primordial structure into transformative, progressive, cultural contexts.

A paradigm, in its own terms, explains or describes aspects of common experience from a unique perspective - like trying to reconstruct a statue from a collection of blurry snapshots. How many photographs, or video segments, are adequate to fully capture a family vacation, a day in the news, the year in review, a lifetime of memories, or a person’s character? Absolute truth may ultimately prove elusive. Increasing detail amounts to overload at the expense of general comprehension. Paradigms help us recognize the universal in the wild.

A collection of pictures taken from various viewpoints increases the recorded detail of a statue, like the opinion of a jury. By comparing and combining multiple paradigms, a universal pattern emerges through reinforced similarities, lending fresh insights into the big picture, into ourselves, and into the fabric of existence. These sources arise from diverse fields of study, and cover disciplines in human nature and in the nature of reality.

As children we learn language. We notice patterns. Regularities get reinforced. As we master patterns of speech, our communication skills grow and our understanding improves. Common ground gets established, and we learn to express our needs with greater eloquence and efficiency.

Paradigms facilitate our ability to communicate novel concepts and develop mutual understanding. Gistmass Ubiquity Theory supplies the framework that not only governs the universe but ourselves as well.

More Gistmass Ubiquity Theory

Primordial Construct: Evolution

Ancestors «	Living Δ	Descendants »
	Genotype N	Environment ↑
Modification –	Natural Selection ≈	Inheritance +
Individual ↓	Phenotype $

Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution

    1. Decent with Modification
    2. Natural Selection

Primordial Construct: Politics

Status Quo «	Reform Δ	Perfect Union »
	Ideology N	Liberal ↑
Special Interests –	Bipartisanship ≈	Majority Rule +
Conservative ↓	Issues $

Political Spectrum

Precedence «	Laws Δ	Principles »
	Judiciary N	Anarchy ↑
Executive –	Democracy ≈	Legislative +
Monarchy ↓	Constituency $

Government Field

Primordial Construct: Problem Working

Tradition «	Trial Δ	Breakthrough »
	Solution N	Real World ↑
Implementation –	Evaluation ≈	Definition +
Isolation ↓	Problem $

Primordial Construct: Astrology

Fixed «	Mutable Δ	Cardinal »
	Air N	↑
Fire –	Quintessential ≈	Water +
↓	Earth $

«	Δ	Cardinal »
	Libra N	↑
Aries –	≈	Cancer +
↓	Capricorn $

Fixed «	Δ	»
	Aquarius N	↑
Leo –	≈	Scorpio +
↓	Taurus $

«	Mutable Δ	»
	Gemini N	↑
Sagittarius –	≈	Pisces +
↓	Virgo $

Primordial Construct: Mathematics

Negative «	Zero Δ	Positive »
	N	Sum ∑ ↑
Subtract –	Identity ≈	Add +
↓	$

Negative «	Zero Δ	Positive »
	N	Product ∏ ↑
Divide ÷ –	Identity ≈	Multiply × +
↓	$

Subtraction and division are not commutative, i.e. the order of the operands cannot be interchanged; but addition and multiplication are commutative, i.e. the operands are interchangeable. Sum and Product are group operations.

a – b ≠ b – a, unless a = b

a ÷ b ≠ b ÷ a, unless a = b

a + b = b + a

a × b = b × a

Negative «	Zero Δ	Positive »
	Imaginary N	Exponential ↑
Rational –	Identity ≈	Irrational +
Reciprocal ↓	Real $

A numerical anomaly exists in the realm of numbers. Square any real number and the result is always positive. For example:

2² = 2 × 2 = 4 and
(–2)² = –2 × –2 = 4.

Square roots operate in a complimentary fashion. Reversing the above example, the square root of 4 is either 2 or –2. But what is the square root of a negative number? It can be represented as the square root of a positive number, straight forward for positive real numbers, times the square root of negative one. But the square root of negative one violates the standard convention for real numbers. The square root of negative one is the numerical anomaly. The symbol for the square root of negative one is i, for imaginary, i.e. √–1 = i and i² = –1.

Given x² + 1 = 0, then x = √–1 = i or –i.
Given x² + 4 = 0, then x = √–4 = 2i or –2i.

Rational numbers can be expressed as an integer or a fraction.

Irrational numbers have no explicit integer or fraction representation. Any decimal equivalent requires an infinite number of digits. Symbolic representations are needed to express irrational numbers. Examples are: π and √2

A hindsight perspective sees the future as an extension of the past. Momentum represents the single greatest predictor of things to come.

A foresight perspective realizes that only now exists. The future is what we make it, while acting in the present.

Primordial Construct: Template

The Primordial Construct Template designates indiscriminate place holders for labeling the Primordial Construct. After many attempts, ten distinct aspects proved adequate for a comprehensive chart of existence. The ten labels are linked into four pairs, comprising eight directions, plus two additional nodes.

Past «	Current Δ	Future »
	North N	Out ↑
Minus –	Home ≈	Plus +
In ↓	South $

A slight modification of the space-time continuum model suffices to produce ten unique labels that are used as Primordial Construct references. Four of the eight directions remain unchanged: North, South, Past, and Future. Up and Down are relics of a narrow, flat earth mentality. In and Out will prove more useful, because they substitute well for Down and Up respectively, relative to the center of the earth, while also encompassing the concept of scale. East and West are replaced with Plus and Minus respectively, since they not only convey right and left directions but increase and decrease as well. The word Current, with its double meanings comprising both now and flow, substitutes for the node Present. For the final node, anchoring the spatial dimensions, the label Home conveys a sense of origin, balance, stability, and change in discrete stages, as in the word homeostasis.

Symbols

A symbol identifies each of the eight directions and two nodes, while at the same time tagging terms related to Primordial Construct attributes.

« Past, resembles a rewind button symbol
Δ Current, in mathematics delta represents a small slice of time or space, somewhate resembles the triangle on a play button
» Future, resembles a fast forward button symbol
N North, magnetic north
↑ Out, up arrow
– Minus, represents subtraction or decrease
≈ Home, approximately equal to symbol represents homeostasis
+ Plus, represents addition or increase
↓ In, down arrow
$ South, magnetic south, dollar sign represents materialism

Beyond the coordinates in four dimensional space-time lie additional properties of a place. Ambiance provides richer texture, and that is the point in starting out with abstract dimensional labels of an indiscriminate nature. In progressing from denotation to connotation, resolving the unique properties of each aspect of the Primordial Construct is the intent of this exercise. In hindsight, ten elements proves a necessary and sufficient number of candidate categories for representing the Primordial Construct.

Primordial Construct: Alvin Toffler's Preconditions for Change

Old «	Change Δ	New »
	Model N	External Pressure ↑
Plan –	Coherence ≈	Vision +
Internal Pressure ↓	Alternative $

Alvin Toffler was the architect for the breakup of the American telephone company monopoly, in which he proposed three preconditions for change. First, external pressure from competition. Second, internal pressure from dissatisfaction. And third, "a coherent alternative embodied in a plan, a model, or a vision."¹

A plan is a step by step process indicative of deductive reasoning, a vision is a pattern indicative of inductive reasoning, and a model is an imagined state, like a role model, indicative of associative reasoning.
__________________
¹Toffler, Alvin. The Adaptive Corporation. Bantam, New York, 1985. pp. xxi-xxii.

Primordial Construct: Quarks

«	Δ	»
	Top (Truth) N	Up ↑
Strange (Sideways) –	≈	Charm +
Down ↓	Bottom (Beauty) $

Primordial Construct: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

The constellation of human needs was categorized by American psychologist Abraham Maslow in a theory of human motivation. Although he organized needs in a hierarchy, modern research finds no empirical evidence to support this aspect of his theory. So we’ll dispense with a hierarchical arrangement. Instead, let’s line the needs up in parallel with the familiar human dimensions of mind, body, heart, and soul to clarify each of Maslow’s categories.

Been «	Being Δ	Becoming »
	Esteem N	Others ↑
Safety/Security –	Actualization ≈	Social +
Self ↓	Physiological $

Death «	Life Δ	Birth »
	Spirit N	Others ↑
Mind –	Soul ≈	Heart +
Self ↓	Body $

Physiological needs are needs of the body like food, shelter, clothing, and sex. Social needs are needs of the heart like love, belonging, and intimacy. Esteem needs are needs of the spirit like confidence, respect, and morality or ethics. Safety and security needs are defenses of the mind like will power directed toward protection against war, crime, disease, starvation, and poverty. Actualization needs are needs of the soul to develop our full potential, which is often a struggle that engages all the resources at our disposal directed toward satisfying all the other needs.

Primordial Construct: Law of the 7 Cs

Convention «	Contemporary Δ	Confirmation »
	Confidence N	Conversion ↑
Competition –	Coherence ≈	Cooperation +
Conviction ↓	Context $

How many Cs do you count? Ten? Me too. But this was the first iteration of the Primordial Construct, and the top row was missing back then. It had a nice ring to it so I never changed the name.

The difference between the light from a lamp and the light from a laser is coherence.