If you have fun with the concept of being able to zoom in to a single Point forever, always getting closer and closer but never arriving, you are one step closer to understanding the concepts of advanced math and calculus. You saw that with any two points you could always find a point that is exactly in the middle. You can then take this midpoint as a new end point and find another point that is in the middle of it. Since points have no size, you can keep on cutting these line segments in half forever.
No matter how close two points are together, you can still find a point in the middle. Thus, there are an infinite number of points in any line segment, no matter how short it is. This is an example of the concept of a countably infinite set of points. It is possible to write out list the location of these points as their distance from the reference point: 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, … and so on forever.
You could just as well cut the segments into thirds, with the location list of points: 1/3, 1/9, 1/27, … and so on forever. Notice that this list of points does not have any of the same points as the one in the last paragraph. So, it appears like you could go on forever filling in all the gaps by dividing the segments up evenly and still never fill in all the gaps. So how many points can fit into the line segment between any two endpoints, no matter how short? Can we ever find a way to fill in all the gaps between points? To fill in all the points between any two points, we would need what is called an uncountably infinite number of points. This is a concept that mathematicians have not yet resolved.
Let’s imagine that you have a universe with only two points in it. You now draw a line segment between the two points and choose one of them to be the reference point. The location of any point along the line segment is now determined by the distance it is from the reference point. Now make a third point on the line segment that is exactly half-way between the two points. This new point is located at exactly half of the distance between the two end points.
Can you see the symmetry that is formed by these three points? The distance from the center point to either of the two end points is exactly the same. If you now were to choose the center point to be the reference point, then both end points would be the same distance away, but in opposite directions.
You would now need more than just the distance measurement alone to determine the location of points along the line. With three points, now direction becomes important. Again, using the axiom of choice and can choose which direction from the center point is positive, and which direction is negative.
We can then, finally, determine the location of every point on the line by specifying both a distance and a direction (positive or negative) from the center point. This arrangement of determining the locations of points on a line is called a “number line”. We call the distance and direction of each point on the line the Point’s coordinates. A Point’s coordinates uniquely determine its location on the line. Finally, we have a way of determining the location of a Point.
The center point is a special point of symmetry between the two endpoints. We can “rotate” the direction (exchange negative for positive directions) and the location (distance and direction) of the two identical endpoints would be exactly the same. This is called “rotational symmetry”. It means you can switch reference directions and the list of all the point coordinates will be the same. Remember that since you can’t tell the difference between points, the order of the list of points is not important.
Please believe me, taking the time to understand these concepts makes math so much more fun and easier later on. Learning these concepts is like learning the basic vocabulary of the math language.
How can the exact location of the Point be described? This is a conceptual problem. It is also where some very advanced concepts of math (found in calculus and number theory) come to play. After some thought, it becomes obvious that if there was just one point in the universe, all by itself, it does not have an absolute location until you look at where it is relative to another point in the universe.
If there were only two points in the universe you could imagine a line segment drawn between the two points, and then there is some distance between the two points, you could pick one of the points as the reference point. Then you could describe the location of the second point as being a certain distance from the reference point. You only need one (1) distance measurement from the reference point to describe the location of the Point. This is why such a line is called 1-dimensional space.
You have now discovered quite a few interesting concepts, including the concept of the number “2”. Two identical objects in space that are distinguished by the distance between them. You have also discovered the concept of the number “1”, the concept of distance, and you are also starting to realize why Einstein’s theory is called the theory of relativity. Distances and times are only measurable relative to a reference point, and you can pick any of the points to be the reference point.
The idea that you can pick any of the points to be the reference point is called the axiom of choice. An axiom is something that is assumed to be true even though it has no definite proof. The axiom of choice forms the conceptual foundation for all mathematics.
Another concept that comes from using the distance from a reference point to describe location is the idea of symmetry. You can exchange the locations of two points, and you have not changed anything. It is impossible to tell the two points apart, and both points still have the same locations relative to every other point. This is called exchange symmetry. Symmetries makes math and physics much easier.
The most singular concept in Math is that of a Point. In math language, a Point indicates a location in space that has no size or shape (it has no dimensions). People often represent it by a dot “.” on a piece of paper. But, the dot itself has a size and shape, and so it does not qualify as a point.
If you were to magnify the dot, you might be able to find the ink-atom that is nearest the exact center of the dot, but this is not the Point either because atoms have a size and shape. You could try to find the exact center Point inside the atom, but whatever you pick has a dimension and still would not satisfy the definition of a point. This is where you really need to start using your imagination.
Soon you would zoom in to a space around the point that is so small that everything else would be so far away in comparison that you could no longer see any of it, and the only thing inside this tiny space would be the Point itself. You could keep on zooming in for all eternity until the only thing in all space around it would be the point itself.
The Point has zero dimensions. The point itself does not even exist. In math language, it is infinitesimally small. So, what is the Point? By the definition of a Point, it has no size or shape, but it does have an exact location. Exactly how can we describe the location of the Point?
I miss sharing my thoughts with you and hearing your thoughts in return. I haven’t been very verbal lately, mostly because there have been some difficult circumstances in my professional life. I have not felt the need to talk about them and yet they have weighed heavily on me.
There are so many things that I want to do to change in the world, I know many solutions of great value and have struggled to find an effective way to get cellular health solutions out to the people who need them. Through all of this and years of learning from the masters, I have found that the only way I can change the world is to change myself into the person that is able to accomplish the visions I have in my own life and then reach out to others. I am redoubling efforts on my professional pursuits also.
I would very much like to get back into contact with all of my friends throughout the world and continue to share with you things that are meaningful and powerful to me, and so I am restarting some weekly blog posts and social media posts to share my thoughts with you. And since I am passionate about atomic science and math, I also would like to post a few “fun” posts on these topics as well. If getting in touch is interesting to you, please join our community discussions, weekly. They are at present on Thursday at 9:00 am mountain time on zoom:
In essence, mathematics is a language. Like any language, it allows you to express concepts that are in your mind. Just like the symbol “TREE” invokes a concept in your mind (with branches and leaves) mathematical symbols also allow you to express many kinds of concepts that exist in your mind. If you can imagine it in your mind, you can devise a symbol to express it. The best part of math is being able to use pure imagination to express all sorts of concepts you form in your mind with symbols you can write down such as “1”, “2”, “3”,”x”, “y”, “z”, etc.
The whole trick to learning math is to understand the concepts behind the symbols people use to express them. This requires that you use your immense power of imagination to capture these concepts. Relax, there really are only a few basic concepts behind the language of math. Even small children can learn them. I will explain some of these concepts to you in this Math Moments Series. What you make out of them can become very interesting.
The real fun in math comes when you realize that you can manipulate (play with) these symbols to form new concepts. These new concepts then become part of your reality. For example, physicists (like me) can use these concepts to better measure and understand how atoms behave. These are the concepts we need to create electricity, motors, cars, computers, and tons of other very useful things in our world.
Mathematics is, in fact, the language of physics…and physics is the study of everything that exists. This language is not really that difficult to learn, you are even allowed to make up symbols to mean almost anything you can think of. Learning this wonderful language is really worth it.
I have always loved truth. Pure truth exposes what was once in the dark. A bright light brought into a dark room eliminates the darkness and reveals what is in the room. Truth is power. The love of truth motivated me to earn my PhD in the discipline of atomic physics. Along the way, I have found that there are things that we know about the foundational nature of nature (atoms, subatomic particles, energy fields, and so forth). After all, I have come to understand that the things we don’t know are vastly greater than the things we know. The things that we don’t know that we don’t know could be infinitely greater than this. The wonder of it all is beyond words.
One of the most important discoveries that I have made is in the field of cellular redox signaling. I identified a composition of reactive oxygen species that plays a major role in the natural healing process. With my training in nanotechnology, I was fortunate to have the knowledge necessary to analyze, stabilize, and mass produce the molecular composition of this cell-signaling compound. The results far exceeded expectations. This liquid composition was shown to be completely safe anywhere in or on the body, wherever it was applied healing was greatly accelerated. I wrote several patents on this technology. This composition contains the same ROS molecules that cells produce to detect tissue damage and signal cell repair. When it touches cells and tissues anywhere in the body, it kills pathogens, reduces inflammation makes tissues heal many times faster, stops bleeding, releases endogenous antioxidants, and normalizes immune function. This redox-signaling technology will certainly spearhead some of the greatest advances in health science we will ever see.
My specialization is in nanotechnology, exploring how small groups of atoms interact and form structures and molecules. What nature looks like on the smallest scale (billionths of a meter) is incredibly fascinating. The applications of nanotechnology in biology make these scenes even more incredible. The human body consists of 50 to 100 trillion cells. There are more than a billion cells in the tip of a finger. Imagine shrinking down to a size where you could dive into one of these cells and observe what is happening inside. Entering the cell, a metropolis of moving molecular machinery would be seen. This machinery is made inside the cell, designed by the coding of the DNA. Thousands of different types of these nanostructures (biological molecules) would be observed, moving around, interacting, self-assembling into structures, breaking apart, and performing the miracles that keep the living cell working. Nature makes nano robots in cells with such amazing complexity that nanotechnologists could not even dream of inventing them. We understand less than 1% of what is happening inside cells. Imagine trillions of coordinated molecules working together needed just to construct a single hair.
These amazing molecular nano robots in the cells are made of atoms that follow the laws of atomic physics. They interact with each other through electromagnetic fields, they conserve momentum and energy, their behavior can be somewhat understood through the laws of quantum mechanics. This is the reason I started to study atomic physics, to understand, at some level, how the nano robots of nature work. Over the years, I have come to realize that, besides the enormous complexity, there are simple concepts that govern how it all works. I could not fathom the whole of it, but I can understand what is necessary to keep cells thriving. In human cells, for example, oxygen, salt water, some 100 types of nutrients, are important as raw materials. This is relatively simple to understand. We also realize that if any of these materials are missing, the cells cannot operate as well. We also realize that the raw materials go into the cell, they are machined into the complex nano robots, and certain molecules come out. A careful balance, called a homeostatic balance, must be maintained so that you have just enough (not more or less) of the raw materials necessary to build the end products and meet the demand. These concepts are easier to understand, they apply to any business that is involved in making products.
The foods we eat, the water we drink, and the air we breathe must contain the raw materials that our cells need. In our societies we grow food, build houses, and form industries, to provide our cells with the things they need. The communities we form act a lot like the communities of cells inside our body, they work together to provide each other with the things they need to keep thriving. The laws that help us build thriving communities are very similar to the laws that cells must follow to build thriving cellular communities inside our tissues and organs. This makes the natural laws of cellular health more understandable. Our body contains the systems that are needed to supply our cells with the things they need. The cardiovascular system is the transportation system, for example, that brings the needed supplies to our cells. The streets are the blood vessels. The nervous system forms part of the communication networks needed to coordinate efforts throughout our huge communities of cells. Your assignment is to list some of the other body systems and compare them to the systems we have set up in our communities (stores, factories, garbage collection, energy generation, etc.)
Everyone should get to know the basics; what I call the 10 natural laws of cellular health.
How much needless suffering could be eliminated by putting into practice a few simple laws of nature? When you understand the research, it becomes obvious that the practice of these natural laws leads to advances in health many times greater than all the advantages modern medical science can provide. Our cells need nutrition more than medication. What would happen if we applied the laws of natural health first, prevented and eliminated better than 80% of major illnesses (according to research), and then used the “traditional” medicine only where it is needed? I often joke that “primary care medicine” (medications and surgery) should really be called “alternative medicine”, something we do after we have tried everything else. The more we can avoid going to the hospital the better. Does this sound like the best approach to you?
Let’s take it a step further. What if you could define what you want your body to look like and feel like? What do you really want to do with your time? What is most valuable to you in life? Do you believe that you could become that best version of yourself? Granted that it does take a little personal thought and effort. Is living your dreams worth it? Do you believe you can?
I know you can. When you get involved with a community of people that care, and discover the truths of life, you can generate the health needed, and might even find the purpose that makes it all worthwhile along the way. This is my wish for all of humanity and the reason I wrote this book. May you find what you are looking for.
This statistic is based on extensive research by the NIH, WHO, and several top-rate medical investigators (see the references to news articles below). It might seem surprising to some of you. You might ask, “Well if we know how to prevent more than 80% of cardiovascular disease (the number one cause of death in the world) why aren’t we doing it?” It seems like saving hundreds of millions of lives would be worthy of the money and effort we, the people, put into our health care systems. We have the technology, we can build it better, stronger, faster.
Sometimes the most complex questions have the simplest answers. This is certainly the case for the solution to universal health care. The question reads like this: Considering all the factors that influence our health, how can we define the best universal health care system? The question is complex, there are genetic factors, environmental factors, cultural factors, lifestyle factors, and at least as many individual factors as there are individuals. This question seems to imply that we must consider the billions of factors that influence our health. How could we possibly come up with a health care system that covers them all? Yet as we gain more technology, we see that the optimal solution is surprisingly simple. Mother nature, over the time life has been on our planet, has done all the hard work for us.
Our current health care systems are focused on knowing everything about diseases (the lack of health) and their pathologies (patterns or symptoms of these diseases). This certainly occupies the greatest amount of time in the medical student’s curriculum. We can identify hundreds of diseases by looking at blood work, body images, chemical shifts and myriads of different pathologies and symptoms. While this knowledge helps us to know what is wrong, when defining the best health care system, we need to focus on the best ways to make things right.
All of us know that our body heals itself. Our tissues, blood vessels, nerves, glands, and even organs can regenerate themselves when given the chance. The cure for a broken bone is to set the bone in place and protect it while it grows back. This mostly happens while we sleep. The methods to prevent 80% of cardiovascular disease are no less difficult. Provide our heart cells and blood vessels with the things they need to grow strong, and they will do it. Take away the things that they don’t need, that get in the way (called toxins) and they will do it faster.
These methods can be distilled down into 10 natural cellular laws, these are all we need to make all health happen, for the cardiovascular system, and everything else. These laws are the topic of my new book. They will redefine health care.
In the past few years, we have become aware that some people in power (we are not exactly sure who) are developing genetic engineering technologies capable of synthesizing genetic code and testing it out on global societies. During the pandemic crisis, mRNA vaccines were developed (with much fanfare) containing genetic coding that forces our human cells to manufacture pieces of a dangerous virus. This was done to cause our immune system to respond to the “real” virus quickly with the hope that wide-spread immunity to the virus would eliminate its potency. The success of this global experiment is debatable. I have yet to see credible conclusive analysis of published results, despite possible data from hundreds of millions of test subjects. In my mind, scientific negligence is great cause for concern.
I just became aware that there is a bill before the Missouri State legislature (house bill 1169) to legalize the placement of engineered synthetic mRNA in foods without the knowledge of the people that consume the food. Genetic mRNA technologies are extremely powerful. We understand that they can be used to eliminate human suffering. In the same breath, we should admit that they also have the power to create enormous human suffering. Just imagine what would have happened if Hitler had gained nuclear capability in his day. Imagine what would happen if he had access to synthetic genetic engineering technologies. To assume that all who have control of such powerful technologies have the best of intentions for all society is the epitome of stupidity. Even if we assume best intentions, we still do not know enough to use these technologies successfully at this point.
Genetic code on earth has adapted over the history of life, millions of species developing over billions of years, as far as we know, adapting perfectly to each other in ever changing environments. With several decades of leading-edge genetic research we may know possibly 2% (at best) of basic cellular molecular mechanisms of the human genome. My concern about forcing synthetic genetic engineering, with genetic codes never seen or tried in nature, may be that we simply do not know the consequences of such, and all life will have to adapt to new codes. It might take at least several centuries to adapt successfully (or unsuccessfully). I would place my bet on the accumulated wisdom of nature over trying to force our current genetic understanding on nature at this point.
I would very much like to have the right to exercise the natural option. Nature is beauty.
This is the age-old question of the origin of life.
The true answer most likely is that neither of them came first, it was most assuredly the intelligence (technology) to build a chicken that came first. When looking at any highly organized structure, it is all but understood that such a structure was built by an intelligent entity. It is intuitively understood that there is a much, much higher probability that any organized structure (like a building) was organized by intelligence than randomly “blown” together by chance. The same is true with the origin of life. It is much, much more likely that the irreducible molecular machinery (those that do not work unless all elements are in their proper place) were formed by an act of intelligence than randomly organized. To ignore this possibility is the very definition of ignorance.
On the other hand, the argument of the spontaneous generation of life, with no intelligent origin other than random acts of nature, seems to be supported by a tangible geological history of billions of years chronicling the spread of life forms on the earth. Life, after all, has (over time) beautifully adapted to earth’s evolving atmosphere, the specific light spectrum from our sun, the myriad amazing interactions between living organisms and species (insects, plants, microbes, fungi, and so forth) that all show that life has the power to evolve and adapt over time to the specific environment where it exists and the surrounding forms of life therein. As such, this logical and critical reasoning can be employed to support the spontaneous origin of life.
Those that study the emerging science recognize the merits of both types of arguments. For such the question might very well be: What came first, the DNA or the molecular machinery that reads the DNA and interprets genes? It can be successfully argued that it would take billions of billions times the known age of the universe to randomly assemble such molecules somewhere in the universe, given the nature of spontaneous generation of such. We struggle to experimentally show that even the most simple components of life can spontaneously self-assemble. Not to mention that such a chance interaction would somehow propagate itself into some form of life. The arguments are certainly open. In light of such reasoning, it is almost infinitely more probable that the intelligence to create life existed first.
We claim to know a miniscule fraction of what it takes to create life, from careful study, but through all our learning, we are just starting to realize that our understanding is limited. Such knowledge, we find, can be used to either create optimal environments for life, or to destroy life altogether. Morality becomes an important factor in the propagation of life. Often mankind struggles to gain power and control over other living things with the concept that “might makes right”. Let us consider that the true concept is “right makes might”; That there exists a true framework of moral agency that optimizes our living environment. Let us call this framework “the law of God”. The adherence to which brings life-abundant, and the violation of which brings destruction.
I choose life and the vastly more probable scenario that God’s law does exist, it governs all, and that it can be revealed through His light to our souls. Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. From my learning and study of revealed truth, I know that such living intelligence exists and that there is a great purpose to our existence. May we all find the truth eventually. There is the promise: Ask and it will be given, knock and it will be opened unto you.
