Hi all, please forgive me for using the group email function again to share with you the following press release — the text was largely written by myself, the main objective being to push some substantive statements to a wider audience in case it’s noticed by one or two Einstein-calibre readers who might exist somewhere and could grasp the unique perspectives despite their natural tendency to dismiss such vanity-looking, non-mainstream products. For your information. Thanks. Have a great weekend. https://apnews.com/press-release/ein-presswire-newsmatics/a-groundbreaking-cosmology-treatise-challenges-mainstream-physics-with-a-dynamic-rotating-universe-theory-0c9a24a0e3af9929f70cf69ac469229e?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=share

@Anya Starseed Then at least you know “we know nothing we experience everything”! Welcome Anya, thanks for joining this new community. As I try to figure out how best to decorate the classroom with some slides, I have been impressed/surprised/inspired by how people react to the notion of “fundamental questions” so differently — for me, it very much speaks to the elusive nature of language, how we can both communicate and miscommunicate with it at the same time, and how the same term may mean different things to different people. Hopefully when we experience everything, that experience also includes the sensation of knowing everything! One of my intellectual heroes, the 11th century Chinese philosopher Zhang Zai, came to this conclusion after a lifetime of pondering: “Once you know the great void is filled with energy, there’s no nothingness.” Look forward to hearing your experiences! Thanks again.

@Sabrina West Thanks, Sabrina, for joining us and for your big question. I slept on it, and here’s my musing:  Truth, being truth, is simple, absolute, self evident, everywhere, therefore the informal answer to your question is “everything!” — even a lie is a true lie, a dream is a true dream, a mistake is a true mistake, a fake story is a true fake story, etc., let alone everything else. Formally speaking, the answer is Energy: whatever exists is but a form of energy, the power to be — all is energy. This is the absolute ontological statement of the absolute truth, at the deepest level of thinking and highest level of expression. Once this absolute ontological truth is established, we enter the realm of relative truths. As rotational energy exists in myriad forms with myriad functions, there are causal relationships and interactions along with constant transformations. Here we talk about facts, descriptions, understanding, knowledge, feelings, emotions, fantasies, imaginations, guesses, lies, mistakes, cover ups, misconceptions, assumptions, debates, hypocrisy, experiments, and so on, you name it. Truth here is no longer absolute: it’s subject to viewpoints, interests, contexts, history, traditions, capabilities, conditions, logical reasoning, moods, belief systems, observation methods, and so on, you name it. Fake truth abounds. This is where I place all religions’ truth claims. Same with most claims currently made by particle physics and cosmology: equally false (which is one of the main objectives of this community, to explain why). For your consideration…look forward to hearing your thoughts! Thanks again.

@Craig Simon Hi Craig, thanks for joining this “community”. I’m more interested in hearing your thoughts on this question than trying to answer it right now — what do you mean by the term “rule”? Any contextual information would help me better understand the question. I sense some deep-rooted connection between the rules in the human world and those in the natural environment — perhaps the reason why you are asking about the source. I do think I understand why this is a fundamental question for you — the notion of rule is closely related to the notion of power, which in turn to that of energy, and energy is everything.

@Dedra S Welcome, Dedra, and thanks for your intriguing question, especially the plural form of gods — by using the plural form, you’ve already done something significant to the more traditional form of God. Your question is also very interesting because of the words “our own” — the focus isn’t necessarily on the questionable or dubious existence of gods, but on the fact that we do exist, and the issue is how to understand the nature of our existence — are we in fact the creators themselves as opposed to merely “creatures” as depicted in the traditional scriptures. My short answer is more positive than negative with caveats: yes, we’re our own gods because we’re a form of energy just like any possible god that can exist — whatever exists can only be a form of energy, possessing the power to be and to transform. If you pursue this logical reasoning to the bottom, you’ll end up where Spinoza found himself: since everyone and everything is their own gods by virtue of being a form of energy, it follows that the all-encompassing energy becomes the real almighty one, the most powerful — the only powerful — concept. That’s why Spinoza ultimately equated God with Nature. A positive answer to your question carries important implications: it actually negates the traditional notion of the supernatural and transcendental God, and in the meantime it affirms the often-neglected powerful (“godly”) nature of humanity with corresponding responsibilities. Thanks again for your great question — a wonderful way to start the journey of discovering how Nature exists eternally in a self-sustaining and self-explanatory manner, with humanity as an integral part of it…