The “”BODY”

(The “MENTAL REVOLUTION”)

Motto: “The humans were the sole “thing” which was
created for other reason than that they were "good".
And this “another reason"... it feels a lot! So, is not
from their fault! But is a hope: each of them to become
“g o od”!”

I developed a theory ("Gravitational Theory of Life") that tries to link the scientific
formalism with the way it is generated: by the “life form" in the first place and by
"intelligent life form", in the second row.
The "Body" is an "order" (exclusively geometrical, which means “non material”), in
time and space, with a certain support. His material part (which is "seen") is only the
support for this "order". Evidence in this regard is that the contact between its material
base (of the "order") and the environment (also "material"), a process that obeys the laws
of the interaction, of "transformation", the "order" ("form") in time and space of the
bodies (interrelationships "functions-> relative positions" of the processes that
constitute them) remains unchanged (within certain limits), despite these contacts.
"Gravitational Theory of Life" is trying to solve, in the above context, and the problem
of generation and preservation of the resulting geometrical disposition of the parts (of the
"BODY"), in space and time, because:
1) In animal cell, the flows of high intensity (mass, ionic) occur before the
equilibrium areas (which means "structure"). I mean that there is a "flow", which
initially, "floats" really on "nothing", but, nevertheless, it is perfectly oriented in space
and time. For example, in the case of mitosis, it starts with a mother cell to get, by flows,
the two daughter cells; it appears that, at least, one of these two new structures came
from "nothing" (i.e. not from "something" structural, pre existing).
And FURTHER cellular structure is only a consequence of statistical equilibrium
occurring in the contact zone of the routes of these "flows".
An attempt to solve this problem did Ilya Prigogine, Belgian scholar of Russian origin,
the Nobel laureate.
In "Gravitational Theory of Life" is a critical analysis of Prigogine's approaches (as
tried and Romanian-born American scientist Adrian Bejan in the 90s in his
"CONSTRUCTAL" theory). Constructal Law, issued by Adrian Bejan says:
"For a finite-size (flow) system to persist in time (to live), its configuration must
evolve such that it provides easier access to the imposed currents that flow through
it.", pursuant to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructal_theory
Or: "For a finite-size (flow) system to persist in time (to live), its configuration must
evolve such that it provides easier and easier access to its currents.”, pursuant to:
http://www.constructal.org/en/theory/presentation.html
The meaning of this formulation is that a fluid, in order to (self) preserving flow

1
(equivalent for Bejan to "life") should flowing on where is "correct" (in geometrical
sense).
Why Bejan contradicts Prigogine's theory? For ordinate this flow in space and
time, Prigogine suggests that necessary actions must comes from outside the
system (the “open system”, in which are valid the principles of irreversible processes
thermodynamics). But in this case Prigogine had to "build" some poly of entropy
(differences of temperature, pressure, etc.) between that occur these "flows", in the living
cell. But this poly does not exist in nature (in most cases the environment around a cell is
omogeneous and isotropic). And Bejan, sensing that "forcing" says: "No! The flows must
to orient themselves independently, base on this law, which, by his nature, is statistic,
"the constructal law".
According to the "Gravitational Theory of Life" both are right and, paradoxically,
both wrong:
a) Prigogine is right: imposing entropic polarizations and ordering the flow, in
space and time, by actions which comes from the outside. But, if exist such imposition, of
material nature, that kind of hypothesis contradicts the fact of independent way of
motion (against any entropic polarization) of the living systems. The evidence actually
"charged" by Bejan.
b) Now: if the "flow" would meet to the "constructal law", the stable flow (means
"life") should be independent.
How is that? The phrase "self" (from above) is not accidentally introduced: who
"persuade" the flow to choose to "live" (and, by default, to respect the law)? Is asking this
question for that the any evolution in physics (and Bejan says that "constructal" law is a
physical law) has a causal nature and, in this formulation of the law, the "cause" of
evolution can not be than a "choice" ("its configuration must evolve...")”! Because the
"configuration”- “the cause”, “must evolve such that it provides easier…”. And this:
“For a finite-size (flow) system to persist in time (to live)”- “the effect"!
But, which is “the cause” of the “configuration” evolving? Because “she” has a
geometrical nature (non causal) and so, "she" can not “evolve”, but, only, can do
"choices" (also a non causal process) we have a problem about "physical (ity)"
here!
Without realizing it, Bejan it founded a Theory of General Relativity for the finite-size
flows. The flows “choose" a certain mode of motion, which can be described by
geometrical ways, as happens with the material corps, in the gravitational field
(paraphrasing relativistic physicist John Archibald Wheeler, space-time tells matter how
to move, matter tells space-time how to change his curvature). In the gravitational field
these "choices" have a purely formal (uncaused) nature: change of the metric and/or
curvature of the space.
He noticed that the manifestation of fluid with stable flows, it seems to be formal
determined ("gravitational", geometrical, uncaused), but, probably, it could not made an
explicit statement about that because he had no idea about the sources of these formal
determinations (such as the gravitational field of large objects). So, the law (“constructal"
law) it remained in a form that generates a physically incomplete model, of those
phenomena, as shown above.
It results, by default that the persistent flows would occur spontaneously (randomly):
so, “life" should have (according to “constructal” low) and another random sources (than

2
"life" itself). And this is not found.
More, I can give some examples of situations where the "constructal" law is in clear
violation: evolution of the biosphere on a global scale, and cancer. In these situations, the
law enforcement at certain levels (local human activity or solid tumor growth) lead to
destructive effects at other levels (biosphere degradation and death- by flows
destabilization-of the body). What looks like the concrete choice of the scale of finite size
flows, alone, can change the nature of the law.
However, the "Constructal" Theory has a great quality: ask, by the incompleteness of
her appearance, for the “Gravitational Theory of Life.”
Solution of "Gravitational Theory of Life" is: "the way of imposing the flow
persistence (“life”), by ”imposing” to appropriate configuration to make his “choice”, it
must come from outward, and also, it must have an informational nature (non
causal), and which overlaps over the scalar (fixed) information from the DNA.
That mean: the ways of imposing the flow in a cell must be, by their nature,
gravitational and inertial actions, plus a "text"(the DNA).
The role of DNA is fundamentally: he make the informational coupling between
the spatial and temporal distribution of the forces of gravitation and inertial actions,
in a very specific "place" in the Universe, with the future “spatially and
functionally" distribution which will describe the cell which must evolve in this
"place". So there can be no “life” in any “place” of Universe without a DNA strictly
specific to the relation "place->shape-function of the cell” (which DNA, by default,
cannot come from elsewhere and work it properly!). Attention to Mars!
Exclusive at the complex organisms level is achieved the coupling, in both
directions (“actions” and “reactions”), of the form-function of the “whole” body
with the physical and chemical conditions from that place, through a mechanism
which it was described in my theory. This mechanism allows the changes in the
DNA and from the part of the physical and chemical conditions (not only from the
part of gravitational field) from the "place", if those become persistent.
In this theory is accepted that the gravitational influences (which primarily come in
from the solar system bodies, including the Earth, ordered by the special geometrical
form of relative motion between them) do not have a material nature (until proven
otherwise, the experimental discovery of the particle generating the gravitational field,
"graviton” and the gravitational wave). I'll come back below with some refinements of
this idea.

For this reason, the nature of imposition of the flow persistence, in the cell, is not
causal!

2) In complex body, the nature of parameters which can ordering in space and time
these dynamic processes implies the existence of "vectors" which DNA can not
contain.
We have a big problem here!
Here is a quote from a treatise on genetics published by doctors from Romania
(http://colegiul-medicilor.ro/Genetica/Tratat-genetica-capitolul-4.html; page 128): "The
mechanisms of expression of a certain genes, in a given period and tissue, involves
the regulating sequences from each gene promoter region and a common regulatory

3
sequence called Locus Control Region (LCR) located upstream of the genes of
structure. LCR is necessary to determine which gene of the group will express in a
certain period of time and in which tissue."
What result from this statement?
a) They tried, too, to realize a model of the relationship "function -> relative
position" for the structures of the "BODY" (because it is strictly necessary for
coordination of the processes),
b) It turns out that some geneticists believe that a way to location, in time and
space, of a component within a system can be done individually, independently, from the
level of each of these components (in this case, the cell).
Wrong! To a self positioning, this component should have a purely geometric
representation of the entire system (like a "map") and a mechanism to put in direct
relation a point on this "map" with his real (timely) and relative position
(geometrically) in the system (by a feedback relation). In this mechanism the main
part it must be the possibility to "see" the entire system in a "picture" realized in a
timely manner. It's no other informational way to do this.
If we think to the structure of Locus Control Region (the one which must to do this,
genetically speaking), we can do the observation that she don't contain something,
anything of a geometrical nature, which to have a liaison, however small, with the real
3D shape of the "BODY" at a given moment.
But, the main problem is not this one! The main problem is that this specific
(genetically) model for the realization of the relationship "function-> relative
position in to the system", which must exist at level of each of the component,
maintains a clear distinction between "part" and "whole". Meaning is that is
considered that the "part” may have a distinct activity from the activity of the
"whole” and, yet, she may be able to coordinate, by himself, in a timely manner,
with ALL the other "parts", to form a “whole". But this is impossible, in terms of
the contact with the "outside" of a reunion of "parts”. "THE PART IT'S NOT
EXIST SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE "WHOLE"!
If the notion of "whole" is accepted, this can occur only at the contact of the system
(the "whole") with a phenomenon from outside of it (her description can only have a
"relatively” character: to actions from “outside"), and only in the case in which the
linking forces or reaction mechanisms preserves its structure ("form "), despite this
contact.
‘Preserves its structure ("form ")’ is not possible by causal relationship between the
constituent “parts". If the "parts" begin to "manifest" (by causal relationships) it means,
by default, that the form of "whole" has changed. So, he himself is something else (has
"disappeared"). If someone gets a slap is very likely to react as a "whole". But if he meets
with a locomotive at full speed will react, most likely, as "parts". If the "whole"
‘preserves its structure ("form ")’, this means that the "parts" are not
“manifesting”at all. So, “THE PART IT'S NOT EXIST SIMULTANEOUSLY
WITH THE "WHOLE"!
Here is the key to the entire reasoning which underlying the new model of "life"
described by the Gravitational Theory of Life!
The "parts" and the "whole" can not exist simultaneously for that the system it
changes its nature for each of the situations in which it can be described:

4
 1) Is causal, if it can be described as “parts",
2) Is formal, if it can be described as “whole".
So, because the notion of "whole" is purely formal (“her description can only
have a "relatively” character: to actions from “outside"), and only in the case in
which the linking forces or reaction mechanisms preserves its structure ("form "), despite
this contact.”) and because we attached this notion at the term "life", is requires, by
default, accepting of the uncaused (formal) nature of “life" itself. So the solution of
imposing the state of "alive" by the formal (geometrical) actions (like the
gravitational actions) is compulsory!
Therefore, impositions with a causal nature at the level of the living body are
excluded! Even if we talking about reflex reactions to environmental actions. Those
reactions do not occur on the causal way but almost immediately (i.e.: timely
variability of antibody, from below) and a model of such a mechanism exists in
Gravitational Theory of Life without circumventing any of the accepted laws of
medicine.
And an intuitive approach to the statement that the impositions with a causal nature
at the level of the living body are excluded, may refer to the postulate 2 of the
“Restricted Theory of Relativity” which limited the speed transmission of a signal at the
speed of light in vacuum. I mean, even if they could “communicate” (establish
of causal relations) by light, all this "parts" (maybe a very great number of it) could not
realize sync, each one with all the other, perfectly. What to say about the case when the
signals are transmitted chemically? So, is “parts” or the “whole”! If there both exist, in
the same while, these entities it must "to fight" between them (Bible: Romans 7; 23,
7; 24).
How allopathic medicine treatments are all "casual" (it refers to the BODY like
“parts”), in light of the above, could be explained phenomena as, for example, the
lack of perfectly healthy individuals at the end of any treatment.
The idea of the fight of “parts” with the “whole” will be pursued, with obstinacy,
throughout this essay.

The general principle of “holism” was concisely summarized by Aristotle in the

“Metaphysics”: "The whole is different from the sum of its parts". The phrase "The
whole is greater than the sum of the parts" is often used when explaining the German
Gestalt theory.
But the correct signification, in my opinion, only Aristotle seems to emphasize: the
"whole" is not only "greater" than the sum of its "parts" (which implying a causal
relationship between the existences of the two entities), but the “whole" is totally
"something else" than the sum of "parts", which implies that there is no causal
relationship between this two entities.
There are approaches such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holon_ (Philosophy) from which are drawn some other
conclusions:
I.e.:Karl Pribram predicts, in my opinion, that there is a real phenomenon, but omits
the essential thing:
1) It differs fundamentally between certain two situations:
a) At the “contact" with the interior of the body, and

5
 b) At the contact with its exterior (the relationship with the
environment). And, also, at this latter level, between what happens in the brains of
humans and those of the animals.
2) The analogy with the mechanism for generating the hologram is too forced:
a) In there must be an underlying which contain the geometric information (a
stand for the image from outside which is analyzed by something like "laser's fascicles"
for generating again, at need, the image), what, in the case of the bodies, not exists (no
phenomenon within the body does not keep the geometrical properties of the analyzed
corps, whatever it is, an internal or an external structure). Regarding the specific way in
which holograms can be made in the brain this it's only a physical possibility (which is
real) but who sins through a principled impossibility: the pictures, as we all know, they
can not be build, rigorous, than in an absolute frame of reference for them. In the brain
there are, let say, a given "frame", a structure, but his form has nothing to do with the
random pictures which people can recognize. These structures are just a stand for some
signals which, at level of a route (dendrites, axon), it run in a "sequential" way. So, they
can not "decode" ("read") an image, only if it given an absolute referential from outside.
Personally I do not known to have anything like this, under the conditions in which
the many of the animal bodies have a clear independence of movement. In fact, except of
the functional (capable to react at the stimulus from the environment) "form-function"
relationships, nothing else in the body’s structure not contains strictly geometrical
information. And this is essential: the mechanism described by Karl Pribram makes sense
only if is talking about such a reference frame ("form" - "function" of the body). And
then, if it is inappropriate in cases of people, which "look" at something with certain parts
of the body (as I will show below), in exchange, for animals, in their natural
environment, it becomes very likely. But only because, as I said, the environment must be
"seen" with the whole body (with the "outside" and with the "inside" of his) whose
"form" - "function" is the only which is fully determined, in space and time, and
therefore, can be a strictly reference frame. But then, the "holograms" carried out by
Fourier processes, at the level of central nervous system, contain not only geometrical
information, but complete information at which the animal has access through the
"observation", with all his senses (and functions), simultaneously.
c) Faraday's Electromagnetic Induction Law:

("variations dΦm of magnetic flux it generate emf έ) made a connexion between

electric and magnetic fields.
Induced current direction is given by Lenz's rule:
"Induced current have such drift that the magnetic field on which it produces it
Precludes to the variation of the flux inducer - in a closed-loop". This rule prevents to be
generated the holograms (by Fourier processes) by the neural networks, which are full of
closed loops.
However, if some occur, the rule prevents to "read" them (by the variation of currents
along of the neural network). In fact, the Pribram's imagined phenomenon would rather

6
explain the processes of imposing of physiological stability (through a feedback loop) of
the neural network operating system, while the processes from this level must be, also,
unstable. And this is because the instability is fundamentally necessary in establishment
of feedback relationships with the random stimulus from the "outside".
c) The real mechanism of control of the forms works, paradoxically, only with
the "time" like parameter.
This kind of conclusions (like Karl Pribram’s), not necessarily wrong, but, definitely,
worse oriented, comes only because the notion of evolution of systems is deemed to have
a causal nature, which, in my opinion, is incorrect:
So, the model for the realization of the relationships "functions-> relative
positions in to the system", which must exist at level of each of the components of a
dynamic system which are been in a state of stability, must be another.
Why is that? Only because the "shape" of “whole” is “dynamic” and is changing all
the time. This is a process which can be described only by “vectors” and “tensors”
because the matter is “gathered" it around the center of gravity of the body and
moves, relative to this landmark, as would be under the influence of a gravitational
field. And this gravitational field is generated only by the state of "living" - in the
dead moment, the dynamic processes begin to leave this space, proof that even
before, those processes has not been kept there by something material.
I think what is being said about Craig Venter's achievement (creation of the
"life") is a great handling: it has been created only a synthetic genome which was
attached to a cell structure (already "alive") as background (which means a "new"
FORM of life), NOT "LIFE" itself!
This kind of manipulation is possible because the accepted formal model of
phenomenon of "living” not exist so far (i.e. "nobody knows what it is LIFE"). An
attempt to modeling of the "life" is the “Gravitational Theory of Life".

Resulting an apparent state of structural equilibrium (a state of stability of values of

dynamic parameters), also, and at this level (the complex body), is circumvented the
principle of causality between the dynamic processes which, in this context, it must
take place simultaneously!

So: the body (at large) is not a consequence of a causally interrelated

phenomena! – “The ‘Body’ is an ‘order’ (exclusively geometrical, which means ‘non
material’), in time and space…”

The "order" (stable interrelationships "functions->relative positions" of the structural

parts) shall be preserved permanently (for a healthy body). It follows that, in a
sense, the action of an external stimulus, which automatically tends to "spoil" this
order, is destroyed by a timely reaction.

EXAMPLE: timely variability of antibody.

A step in deciphering this phenomenon was a development, in 1965, of a model of

recombination of genes, so that many more genes, and not always the same, give rise to a
protein chain according to the principle "more gene - one protein " by William Dreyer

7
and Claude Bennett. In fact, we talk about not one but an infinite number of variations of
the same protein.
This model was verified experimentally (in laboratory conditions) by Susumu
Tonegawa, Nobel laureate in 1987.
But there are serious reservations regarding its operation under real conditions (in
vivo). "Given the slow evolution in time (reflected by latency τ) of these
processes, how do you explain that a foreign substance is recognized almost
instantaneously, and the body may starts already making the appropriate antibodies ?" –
Karen Bulloch - University of San Diego, 1978.
Any biological causal chain involves a latency τ, as follows:
A biological system, regardless of its complexity, can be defined by a linear operator
(S), which acts on some input quantities ui and generate the outputs yj, according to the
expression:
yj (t + τ) = (S) ui (t)

Where “t” is time and “τ” is the latency of biosystem.

Then, by what mechanism, such kind of a processes, can give an almost instant
and efficient response?
This is the question at which some geneticists must to respond (because Locus
Control Region can’t be the correct answer, considering those from above, and the
latency of involved processes)!
It is known that the complex interrelationships between the structures of "evoluated"
structures (tissue, organ, body) have a form of "CLOSED CAUSAL CHAIN": Francois
Jacob - Nobel laureate for genetics said:" ... each component (of life systems) becomes
for the other its own condition of existence, equally cause and effect. "
But a "closed causal chain" of the processes (process "1" generated process "2",
process "2" generated process "3" and so on, and at last process "n" generated the first
process "1"), if it's followed by a state of stability of values of dynamic parameters
(equilibrium), at the level of each process (we found this on organisms), involves the
simultaneous development of these processes (which it transform in "CLOSED
ORDERED CHAIN").
But, also, their chemical nature, burdened by a latency (slow evolution in time), made
so that certain cell produces a certain amount of substance in a given period. It can result
that some structures, which are consecutive, from a functional point of view, will do not
operate simultaneously, for lack of "raw material”.
In the body, all structures must function simultaneously, so the flow of the substance
which functional unites them must to be continuous and closed. It follows that some cells
must begin working before receiving "raw material" from previous functional cells, based
on a quantity of substance which is available for processing in their very structures. This
mechanism could be the explanation of the intern synthesis process (biosynthesis) for
necessary substances in metabolism, independently of the process of assimilation of food,
from outside.
Handy command for the very moment when this phenomenon must take place
must have a "support" more "rapid" than a chemical process (the "latency" high). He
must be an electrical signal. Vegetative (autonomic) nervous system role is to
provide such synchronization signals of chemical processes at the contact of the

8
structures (sensitive and effectors) with the environment. The result of synchronization
is a continuous mass flow between the different structures of the body which
provides geometric and functional stability.
If in a "link" of the "chain", that supports an external stimulus, the flow tends to be
interrupt because of this stimulus ( means "dead" ), but not "mechanically" but an
"informational" interrupting (means repetitions with intervals shorter than "latency" of
such chemical processes, which, default, is forced to consume more) then, the following
functional structures may remain without "raw material" (even without the quantity of
substance from their own structures which is for maintain the simultaneity of processes).
Under the electrical impulses pressure, that forces them to work on, properly, and in
this kind of conditions, by compensation with energy of the lack of substance, they
become to destroy their own internal structures (the one that gives them the "phenotype”)
turning them into malignant cells, without “function” (cancer).
So, the electrical signals those provide simultaneous processes in the body, under
certain conditions, forcing some structures to operate properly and continuously, in
a specific way, initially it is useful for body (to avoid the spontaneous collapsing
under the action of certain types of stimulus, informational organized).
The tumors become an independent organism (from his host). They are intelligent,
they can take decisions, they can adapt at the specifics external stimulus (treatments or
actions of immunologic system). This coordinated tip of behavior of malign cells is
facilitated by the connection of the tumor with the nerves of autonomic nervous system
(which offer a rich informational support and which exist- the connection- in all
situations, known or not by the medicine).
So, the principle of a method (for cure the cancer) is that: the tumor mast be
isolated by the influence of activity of the nerves (cutting the nerve or stop the
electrochemical signals circulation influence from synapses to the tumor by activity
of a neurotoxin-see American patent: Pub. No. : US 2005/0031648 A1; Pub Date:
Feb. 10, 2005).
Quote, from this patent, which shows that exist the situation (and it could happen to be
more then this one) in which the medical science haven't knowledge about the connection
between the cancer and the nervous autonomic system: "0193- Contrary to the general
belief that the pheochromocytomas are not innervated and that the release of
catecholamines from such tumors is not under nervous control, there is evidence for
cholinergic innervation of such tumors."
Main and Prehn have performed such experiments in 1957 (they excised the tumor
and reinocullated the same tumor to the same animal) with promising results. But they
follow a different theoretical idea (the existence of a specific tumor antigen).
There exists a material: “This Week’s Citation Classic ‘a U1
Prehn R I & Main I M. Immunity to methylcholanthrene-induced sarcomas.
.1. Nat. Cancer Inst. 18:769-78, 1957.
[National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MDI]” (cc/number 15;
April 15, 1985) which shows that the results of Main and Prehn experiences (the specific
immune response of the organism for tumor) have not had, until now, an
accepted explanation .
I can put at disposal for anyone interested a treatment solution that complies with
the principles set forth above and which most probably has not been used nowhere

9
in the world.

The “PART” or THE “WHOLE”?

I. “I", is the sole "soft" for “knowledge"?!

“ALL KNOWLEDGE IS RELATIVE TO THE MIND, OR THAT THINGS CAN BE

KNOWN ONLY THROUGH THEIR EFFECTS ON THE MIND, AND THAT
CONSEQUENTLY THERE CAN BE NO KNOWLEDGE OF REALITY AS IT IS IN
ITSELF.”-
HTTP://WWW.SPACEANDMOTION.COM/PHILOSOPHYPOSTMODERNISM.
HTM

Roger Sperry (Nobel Prize for medicine - research on the brain);

Willis Harmon (Prof. Emeritus, Univ. Stanford):
"We have neglected conscience in our research on the world ".

As you know the basic science is (inexplicably) in a kind of "time out", very
dangerous. While the "brains" and money, on complex experiments (CERN - Geneva),
are not missing. The most likely explanation of this phenomenon is that the way, in
which the science goes, in its development, is not correct.
We must go back to the origin. But the "origin" is where we haven’t looked hardly
enough: in ourselves.
Everything revolves around the "I", the primary entity for any exponent of the species
Homo sapiens. Is it a natural, spontaneous phenomenon? Obviously not! He appears only
in the case of human, in very special circumstances. They are generated exclusively by an
appropriate social environment. An evidence of this phenomenon is that "I" never
appeared in any other species in its natural habitat. While the people who have evolved,
from an early age, outside of a social environment (example: children who have survived
a longer time in the jungle) this phenomenon, self-conscious, disappeared.
With regard to the environment in which “I" is develop, we must try a definition for
"social environment".
Obviously, this definition will have to express, first, that between the individual and
the natural environment is "something", "an interface", which is not the case for the other
animals, falling in a certain ecosystem.
And this "interface" is a purely informational one.
Definition: "The social environment is an environment where the opportunities
to meet the physiological needs are restricted, in an informational (formal) way.
Overcoming these limitations is by the respect, during the actions, of an algorithm
recorded on an artificial medium (created specifically for this purpose: spoken text,
written, gesticulation, painted, modeled on the material support, etc.). This registered
algorithm will be called the “language".
Every action performed, on the basis, of this algorithm has a partial motivation, of a
"stage", strictly formal (information). This motivation of a “stage" is obviously broken by
the natural context of existence (Which always PROVIDES AN ALTERNATIVE TO
DIRECT MEETING OF PHYSIOLOGICAL NEEDS and on which the animals

10
they choose, IN THEIR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, BUT on which HUMANS,
choose not to follow them for the reasons which we shall analyze below).
This algorithm, being unnatural, it could not be imposed on the basis of the
spontaneous "discoveries" made in the ecosystem, as many theories trying to prove! And
this, because the partial objectives of the algorithm, needed to reach the meet of
physiological needs, simply does not exist in nature.
To justify this statement, should be described, at the level of this analysis, what
means the "natural environment".
Definition: Thru "natural environment" will understand the plurality of
external stimulus of the organism, of various natures (physical, chemical,
informational, etc.) interrelated in certain order, in terms of spatial-temporal
parameters, "around" the body, under the form of “chain tidy (ordered) closed".
A “chain tidy closed" which is (like I said above) a closed causal chain: wherein the
process "one" determines the process "2", the process "2" causes the process "3", and so
on, and the last process "n" determines the initial process "1".
The resulting stability of dynamic processes, yielding a structural appearance of this
route closed ("causal chain" are turning into a "chain tidy –ordered- closed). Stability
implies, in an automatic way, the simultaneity of the processes from "1" to "n".
It is obvious that the “CLOSED ORDERED CHAIN “structure of environment is a
notion that is closer to the notions of "food chain" coupled with the "ecosystem" in which
the body was found it.
But unlike these, which are, scientifically speaking, a plurality of processes interrelated
in causal manner, here it is accepted, as an axiomatic truth, that the nature of environment
(which must ensures stability of the conditions of existence) near of a body, must be, by
itself, the nature of a "CLOSED ORDERED CHAIN". This is not a causal one!
Why is that? Because the "body" itself (in which are overlapping dynamic processes)
also has a structure “CLOSED ORDERED CHAIN” (Francois Jacob - Nobel laureate
for genetics said: "... each of the components (of living) becomes for the other his own
condition of existence, equally cause and effect. ").
So, the “natural environment "(the context in which the body develops successful)
MUST interact with the body solely that to preserve stability in space and time as
“CLOSED ORDERED CHAIN".
Resulting that the "natural environment” must have the same nature! By default, it will
be a system of processes that occur simultaneously (even if "simultaneity"- means
"simultaneously” contact with a body of all the processes from around it- is difficult to
verify because of dimensional differences between the environment processes and the
body processes).
Now: is known that the generating signals of mechanisms of the "conditioned reflex"
does not find in the body's natural environment for study (that's means that they not
appear- READ "are not elected" - on grounds of "SIMULTANEOUSLY" WITH
OTHER PROCESSES from a “CLOSED ORDERED CHAIN”): they are taken out of
context and that is precisely why the animals must be forced to absorb them. They are
artificial!
It follows that the algorithm was imposed solely with the mechanisms of "conditioned
reflex" (Pavlov).
More: repetitive nature of the signals leads to a negligible probability of spontaneous

11
occurrence (that implies, eventually, and, therefore, the emergence of an entire
“CLOSED ORDERED CHAIN ", totally new, where they must fit thru the simultaneity
criteria), in a certain “natural environment”.
We talk here about emergence of "civilization" or about emergence of the "social
environment”?!
Question: The signals responsible for the appearance of conditioned reflex
having an informational (formal) nature, which is obvious , what intelligent entity,
from outdoor of the natural environment, it could generate them in conditions in
which the process involves, necessarily, and the imposition of a special status for
individuals: TO FORCE THEM FOR the RECEPTION OF THOSE SIGNALS
(Pavlov's dog stomach secrete hydrochloric acid -without to being hungry - but by
lighting the bulb, simply because the animal was forced to sit there and to see him
for many times before)? Or: who (imp) put light between "food "and the dog?

In other words: Who is "Pavlov" FOR "HUMANS"? *

Returning to the "I", it seems that the Universe evolves on principles that apparently
exclude its existence, and that it was artificially generated.
Be a coincidence that science, base exponent of the “objective knowledge”, has
remained true to this principled approach?
Why no formal model of a certain phenomenon, created during its history, does not contain
physical quantities or parameters to characterize and "I", together and simultaneously, with this
phenomenon (Gravitational Theory of Life includes a model of "I” in a complete model of the
Universe)?
It is clear that a formal model is generated, in fact, by association of “I" WITH the
phenomenon which is studied.
It follows that by excluding the "I"- from any formal model does not solve the
problem of objectivity of the model. Why? Precisely : because "I" is a particular
phenomenon at the universally level ("strait-laced" by a lot of formal links and special
conditions - see above which are not to find elsewhere in nature) and, however, the "I" is
the only way of contact of humans with the Universe.
What follows from here? That image of the Universe that is obtained by the humans
is formed, exclusively, with the notions defined thru those special conditions and formal
links (relations) that characterize the "I” (which are imposed from "other side").
Analogy: a piece of stainless steel does not "see" a jet of water which is taking contact.
The jet of water can not change the underlying structure of the pieces of steel (for
which there is no running water). But another piece of stainless steel can change these
structural links. So, she is "very visible" to the first piece. From this point of view, the
diamond, for example, is among of most "blind" materials. He can "observe", possibly,
only other diamonds.
So, "I" is happening (by "filtering" the image of the Universe) and we (the "humans")
we do not consider it. His form is inextricably linked with those conditions (and "links")
imposed by social environment to the concrete phenomena (e.g.: the living organism).
In other words, "I" as a scientist, I'm going to do analysis and synthesis of phenomena
encountered in a much greater extent than other individuals who, through force of
circumstances, dealing with something else. I can tell them that I do that stuff for nothing

12
anyway, because the universe is "filtered" by my "I”? No!
And because an important part of the "I" is obtained through education (by
imposition), and by that, is relatively common to most individuals, they agree with my
"discovering" (in so far as can hide that this agreement is due by common parts of the "I",
ignored, for objectivity, from any formal model).
One could say that, the "I” after the nature and the way it is generated, are accepted as
such if it is common to a significant number of individuals. It is, actually, the support
for “communication", in a social environment, and not for "knowledge".

Hence, from this are coming the FUNDAMENTAL LIMITATIONS OF

SCIENCE!

Considering globalization, widespread computerization, social and economic

relations, very special (unique) in these circumstances, we find that they bring the
individuals in a position in which it could not avoid, as being devoid of meaning, the
phenomena that govern the evolution of society as a whole.
And its problems (of the society) require, unfortunately, immediate solutions.
If things go so wrong, which is the place of the “I” in this context??
The human has, since the dawn of history, questions about the world and life. Initial
Responses, which are found, have a nature of mysticism. That evidenced a strict
determination "Universe->human". A simple analysis shows that is a common sense
approach which would be, at the least, a natural one: the Universe existed before human
(the "I”). Is not the material Universe (whose fundamental law is "moving", "interaction",
"transformation") the Universe which we talk about.
"Something" material may not generate a phenomenon that remains unchanged in spite
of the interactions (as happens between certain limits, with the organisms). The
organisms, apparently, do not exist on the basis of known physics laws (do not arise
from something material). And that makes us to think at the “religion”…
Where we have come on this way? If we refer only to human sacrifices on the altars of
pagan gods and to the Inquisition crimes and gross errors of church (Giordano Bruno,
Galileo Galilee) in the Middle Ages, we can not otherwise than, to put into question the
correctness of this way of seeing the things.
What has changed lately?
Why that clear causal relationship between that Universe and the "human" ("I") can
not be accepted anymore?
A possible answer to these questions must take account of a fact: knowledge is based,
today, mostly on the scientific approach. And its essence is embodied by the
establishment of "primacy" of the "human" ("I") over the Universe itself.
Direct consequence of each of the both ways of seeing the world is that the
individuals, the "subjects", exclude themselves from the ''image'' of the Universe. We
showed that, scientifically, it is considered that an object or phenomenon is better known
as the subject it might influence less, through observation. These objects or phenomena,
"objectively" modeled, in fact, belong to a Universe which is part, exclusively, from the
outside of the "subject." So, being incomplete…
This fact may be explained by the antinomy that "I'' is generated and is manifest as a

13
result of a causal contact with the environment of the organisms (as we see above, this
phenomenon is artificial and is related to the generation of "conditioned reflexes"),
but "exist" (despite of the contacts) in a, seemingly, perpetual stable condition, which is,
obviously, uncaused (can not be generated by the thing which try to "spoil" the stable
condition of the "I" in every moment-the material Universe).
Solely mystical knowledge or exclusively scientific knowledge (either having as
object to find a “final rule”, causal, spiritual or material) leads to the impossibility of
modeling the "inside of the subject" ( i.e. inside of the “bodies”). Attempts to achieve
such models of organisms, solely based on models of phenomena from outdoor of the
organisms, have proved sterile.
The purpose of this analysis is precisely to underscore of the need of an accurate
modeling of the internal zone of "knowledge" process (from the "interior” of the
organism), before initiating of any other process, in relation with the "outside" of it.
The success of this undertaking would enable to complete process of creating a model
for “knowledge” (loss of differentiation between "I", "body" and "Universe").
For this, would be tested the specific modeling of “subject" himself. This new model
of "I" should replace his models which made, so far, to be possible only mystical or
exclusively scientific "knowledge". This should make from the "subject" an integral part
of the image of the Universe, complete and correct this time, in formal terms.
The two "outer" sides of the process of knowledge, the mystical and the scientific, are
considered by the two important philosophical currents: idealism and materialism (with
all those known nuances, which are considered)...
Lack of de facto of the reconciliation of the conclusions implied by this two
approaches stems from the fact that the "subject", as a living form, which support a
stable, fixed discontinuity of the dynamic process of "knowledge", may be considered,
with the same kind of arguments, the "sender" (idealism) or/and the “recipient"
(materialism) of the phenomena that make up this process.
Being an “open" interrelationship (in the discontinuity) of dynamic processes, it (the
interrelationship) can exist only on the basis of causation, in one sense or in other: the
"idea" is cause of the “matter" or the “physical processes" generate the "idea".
Overcoming this impasse must to be tried by accepting that a completion, by closing
of the knowledge process cycle, will generate a dynamic process that will exclude
causation ("idea" will determine "the material aspects" but, at the same time, the
"matter” will generate the "idea"). Therefore, will no longer make a problem of a
"cause" and an "effect" involved, both entities will lose their consistency, and, in the
evolution of phenomena, will be satisfactory to be considered only of a given "order"
(with geometrical nature), timeless, respected at all levels of existence.

II. The generation and expression of "I" s

Formal language is grosso modo, the method of communication meant to substitute, for
Homo sapiens, means of communication used by the rest of animals, between individuals
of the same species.
Initially, as noted above, the "formal language" it is "learned” thru the mechanisms
generating conditioned reflexes.
By what differs the formal language, essentially, by the rest of the means of

14
communication (with physical, chemical and physiological support) used by the animals?
The animals, which communicate the models that describe the real processes (i.e. for
description of a certain phenomenon, the communication is made in a quasireal while, by
the relation with the evolution of the phenomenon). Hence, the communication between
animals has evoluated on the basis of (quasi) non causal interrelation.
Instead, the humans send, by formal language, the description of virtual processes
(practical, the processes being triggered and carried, far away, in time and space, by the
moment when he made his description). Which description may be only "memory" or
"prediction".
Formal elements for achieving these used models ("memory", "predictions") are
accepted as "ideas" (with a nature of information). It materialized that the "IDEAS" are
"images" of the partial objectives to being achieved and exceeded for meet the
physiological needs (what the dog has "imagined" when the bulb is lighting, and in the
stomach is secreted hydrochloric acid, without to give him food). These partial objectives
are targets, artificially introduced (does not exist in nature- i.e. by the bulb) and
imposed by the algorithm (mechanism of the conditioned reflexes) from the "other side".
If between observing a phenomenon (CAUSE) and the formal language model to
describe it (EFFECT) there is a certain lag (based on the use of the algorithm), period
with measurable duration, then the relationship between cause and effect is (how else) of
"causal”! Therefore any description of a phenomenon supported by science (which works
only on formal models), is accepted to be fair only if it involves "causality"!
How and why they came to this situation? The answer refers to the "emergence" (is it
actually an "imposition") of a formal interface (algorithm) between stimulus and
response, in case of humans (which "response", thus, it become "conditioned"), and
which insert a time lag between the phenomenon (stimulus) and its description.
In the natural environment, the humans wouldn't survive if he is responding thus (after
a "time lag") to the stimulus action. So they created (“inspirited", by imposition, from
"other side") an artificial environment for their “life".
It may be noted that formal models, submitted by formal language, which are “virtual"
entities (which occurring in a distant lapse, in space-time, by the real phenomena and / or
processes that have generated it) may be appropriates, in probabilistic terms, if they are
described the phenomena and processes with parameters which preserved themselves
(being constant) for a long while. In other words, we talks about phenomena that have
almost the same "picture" and when they are seen and in the moment of their description,
in the formal language (the description which is, thus, possibly to be experimental
verifiable). I refer to the structures and /or the dynamic processes with parameters
(relatively) constant.
When we want to describe the human body is a unique situation in which formal
support of modeling and observation processes of phenomenon is focus on him. In other
words, it “talk to" him "about “he" himself. It follows that the formal language must,
necessarily, change its position, which is stated in the beginning (to "support of the
communication process between individuals").
Unlike other approaches (in medicine, biology, physics, biophysics, bio-cybernetics,
information theory, etc.), which have the same object (the "body"), and which making a
clear distinction between the "observer" (researcher) and the observed phenomenon (the
"body"), below, will be generated some conventions that will remove this distinction.

15
 Formal separation between the researcher and the body is very likely the origin of the
known shortcomings (lack of a complete and correct model of the "organisms").
Therefore, it will issue the following
Postulate:
A body can be described as a model (whose shape does not matter right now)
which, in turn, is creator of models.

At the level of this analyze it is accepted like "model" the shape of the reaction of
"body", quite specific, generated at the action of an external stimulus. In other words
it will accept that form of this response is strictly related to the form (and the nature) of
that stimulus, thereby constituting a model of his.
How it show, formally, a pattern of a "designer of models"? Here's not a simple
problem at all. A certain model (pattern) is static. And it follows from the affirmation of
certain properties which must remain available for a given period. But something
describable by a “static” model can not create, only by itself, models with completely
random forms (depending on the form and the nature, also random, of external stimulus).
If, nevertheless, this phenomenon happens, it is clear that this "structure" has, itself; a
form based on parameters that change randomly over time, and thus, which can not be
described by a "static" model.
Static modeling of "life" is an error in this case!
The only acceptable model of "life" is one that in turn could create models,
independently. You might say that computers are "creative models of models", which is
not true! The “hard" and "soft" structures implemented in the computer contains, in a
virtual state, a number of modeling possibilities which is practically infinite, but are
always there, in the same shape.
Observatory (the human) chooses some of these opportunities to create a model.
Ultimately, only the beings (humans) had to create the models transposed on output
devices. And information system had to remain, always, "dumb".
Coming back to "life", it seems that it can be described using a model (and thus
represents an entity with stable properties in time) but at the same time, this "model" it's
capable to creating other models with a completely random shapes (representing an
entity with properties varying in time). It follows that life is "a dynamic model". In other
words, it is part, simultaneously, of two different dimensions of a formal model of
Universe. In one is a model and in the other may, possibly be, creative of models
(“Corpora non agunt nisi fixata”-latin, means: “The body don't reacts without being
stable”)
This dynamic model, an abstract entity, could be called “observer." Its usefulness is to
relationship building "accidentally stimulus -> observer->model” which is fundamental to
that must necessarily (if is properly described), to be bi-univocal (available in the both
ways-"accidentally stimulus -> observer->model-> accidentally stimulus") and,
in this way becoming a closed order chain, timeless, and thus, non causal.

For Homo sapiens, the "knowledge" which is based on "I" and "formal model"
has the exclusive nature of a mode of communication.

But the "image of the reality" must be generated from a process based on an individual

16
point of view, which is unique, as are each of us.

III. Conclusion

THE CONTACTS WITH “REALITY” WILL BE COMPLETED (HIS

RESULTS WILL BE ACCEPTED AS "Knowledge ") ONLY When THOSE will
be biunivocal, and, consequently, they could take place simultaneously (that means
"causelessly") IN BOTH directions ("an unique REALITY" has "formed", IN A
"SINGLE " MANNER, on each of us, but, in the same time, the “REALITY” itself
may be modified, in a controlled manner : “We were created! And this was
done only to correct this mistake!”). It follows:
The “MENTAL REVOLUTION”!

Cancer

"I" is generated by a "social environment".

T.G.V. (“gravitational theory of life ") has put in relation these two phenomenons:
"cancer" and "I".
I talk above about the special signals which are generating the "conditioned reflexes"
(which are generating partial objectives), and which can leads to an emergence of an
entire “CLOSED ORDERED CHAIN ", totally new, where they could fit thru by the
simultaneity criteria, in middle of a certain "natural environment" (also, defined above).
In such kind of environment it is necessary to initiate specific actions to meet the basic
physiological needs (food, water, resting, reproduction). These specific actions will be
“unnatural”, based on respect of an algorithm meant to achieve these partial objectives).
Their consequences (interrelations of processes results, in the environment) will no
longer correspond to the nature of “CLOSED ORDERED CHAIN ", in their
conduct).”Unnatural" must be understood here like something "extra", which
"intermediate" the relationship between "organism" and his “natural environment", and
which, automatically, will breaks the "order" in the environment and in the body .
Fundamental characteristic of these intermediate stages to meet the basic
physiological needs is that is referring, by default, to a special functional structure
that is only a "part" of the “BODY”.
For example, repeating relationship “light the bulb-> bringing of food " in Pavlov's
experiments, leads to changes of parameters of chemical interface of the synapses
("learning") that support the informational link between the consequences at the nervous
level, and the reception of these kind of stimulus. Also, through the endocrine system
(hormones) this structuring generates the internal mechanisms that "prepare” a distinct
superior part (tissue, organ) of the body to meet a false physiological need (i.e.
hydrochloric acid secretion in the stomach, without being really hungry).
But the body tends to function as a "whole" (otherwise it not works! He is
"dead"!).Back with Francois Jacob's statement:" ... each component (of life systems)
becomes for the other its own condition of existence, equally cause and effect."
The phrase "equally" means "at the same time" or "simultaneity". In case of
chemical processes, which are encumbered by an inherent latency of such processes, the
"simultaneity" can be achieved only by a non-chemical mechanism, which control some

17
kind of signals (for starting and stopping processes), and, this signals, must to can move
with much greater speed (their support must have, in these circumstances, only a nature
of a purely energy).These signals should be able to start and/or stop certain chemical
processes, at appropriate moments, in a way that, despite of the latency, they (chemical
processes) shall be conducted simultaneously. Energy signals (electrical) generated for
achieving simultaneity in the “CLOSED ORDERED CHAIN" of the body are
integrated in a "temporal model" (with time parameter) of the ideal shape (in time) of the
functional interrelation of processes. "Temporal model" could be equated with the score
of the conductor of a big symphonic orchestra, which plays the classics.
Should be noted that the endocrine system works on the same principle of
maintaining the integrity in space and time of "CLOSED ORDERED CHAIN" of the
body but I must emphasize that this mechanism becomes effective when the body has to
react to a kind of extended (dimensional) stimulus (in terms of space and/or time) that
can affect the integrity of the body only at the level of a much broad structures than the
cell, such as tissues and/or organs. But the probability of apparition of such stimuli is
lower in the natural environment of the organisms (they are the exceptions in a “natural
environment”). So, the timely reaction is sufficient to take place in a higher interval than
for direct actions of the stimulus, at cell level.
So the support for command signals (hormones) for achieving the “simultaneity” of
processes, at this level (tissues and/or organs), is the blood. In the circulatory system, the
transmission speed of these signals (supported hydraulic) is significantly lower than in
the nervous system (with electric conduction).
And at this level there is a kind of "temporal model" ("education"!?) but which is
structured (at synaptic level) on the basis of the "ideas", "learned" in a "social
environment" (based on mechanism of "conditioned reflexes"). That's possible because
the speed of development of the two processes: the transmission of synchronization
signals (hormones), to the tissue and/or organ level, by blood, and the application of
"algorithms" based on "ideas" in initiating of actions, are comparable (it happen a kind of
resonance), but which are smaller than processes based on "temporal model" (electrical
processes) which are called only "reflexes".
.
“CLOSED ORDERED CHAIN " ensures the structural and functional stability of
the "BODY". So, some action of the natural environment, at the level of the specific
process "p" can put to work (necessarily and “simultaneously”, trough “temporal
model”) the entire body. And this process would evoluate without involve any risk.
But if in the body's natural environment, appears an artificial signal (which it's not
simultaneously with no one of the simultaneous processes of his natural "closed ordered
chain"?
If in the "BODY", before that, wouldn't be structured, trough imposed repetitions
("learning"), at the synaptic level, the specific relationships "artificial stimulus->"
virtual stimulus "(the "idea" which corresponding with a "real stimulus") he would not
react in any way, or, in the worst case, would seek to avoid it. That's because, a possible
appropriate physiological need, which to be in relation with the real physical aspects (i.e.,
light of the bulb, in "Pavlov's” experiments) simply does not exist, for this specific
"BODY"!

18
 The "real stimulus”, in the paragraph above, means the "object" which it must found
in the environment to meet a specific and false (unmanifested) physiological need, and
which is appropriate with a specific "artificial stimulus" if , THE "IDEA"
CORRESPONDING WITH THIS "OBJECT" WAS "LEARNED" BEFORE.
But if the “animal” is not in its natural environment but in one that offers no "natural"
alternative and THE "IDEA" CORRESPONDING WITH THIS "OBJECT" WAS
"LEARNED" BEFORE?
The answer is one: he will “pay his respects" to the relationship "artificial stimulus
-> virtual stimulus" with the actions involved by the conditioned reflex mechanism! He
becomes “HUMAN”!
That would explain the anomalous phenomenon that causes a person to become
aroused, exclusively sexually, only for that he (she) is look to a picture representing a
person of the opposite sex (or not ...), naked, even if the picture does not mean so far, a
real "person", even if that to be naked does not mean that (image) it is ready for
copulation...
Also, it can give examples of situations which aim, only formal, to satisfy the other
physiological needs.
So, is reach the abnormal situation in which the “part“ leads the "whole"!
This is the essence of the process of "learning"; to subjecting the "body” only and
repeated, to a single type of stimulus and forcing him to react, too, only with the
structures imposed by the nature of that stimulus, which involves the removal of
these structures from the general context of functioning of the body (which means
"aggression" and I believe it violates the human rights, primarily the right to choose
freely).
I.e. of “AGGRESSION”:
1) By "absolute" education, which fails to mention that any information
"learned"
is something related, ultimately, also, to something unnatural, an another "I" of a
person, even spiritual, not to the "TRUTH"!
2) By the excessive advertising,
3) By the political manipulation,
4) By the energo-informational manipulations.
The body will act, anyway, as a "whole" with one condition: the action, which must
represent the means of achieving the finality of relation "artificial stimulus" -> "virtual
stimulus" (means the evolution of "virtual stimulus" -> "real stimulus" relation- the
"eating", in "Pavlov" experiments), will can be completed it in an appropriate interval of
time, once with finding of the "real stimulus" (the "food", in "Pavlov" experiments)!
What does "an appropriate interval of time” between the initiation of action (due to
"artificial stimulus") and the "finding" of "real stimulus"? Reaction "as a whole"
(exclusively relative to the "real stimulus") occurs only at the level of chemical processes.
These processes involve a specific rate of development (the “latency"). If the time
interval between action and finding the "real stimulus" is too long (what can happen in
"Pavlov" processes, if the food does not appear within a "decent" interval of time after
lighting the lamp) speed and intensity of the response of the target distinct structure, to
the "artificial stimulus" increases, based on positive feedback process which will
"remove" from the context the way in which is functioning the specific structure of

19
"CLOSED ORDERED CHAIN” (acidity in the stomach will grow geometrically,
involving adaptation and, finally, pathological-for humans means, also, the “deviation of
behavior” and/or determined genetic changes- processes).
In this particular situation (a large time interval between the appearance of "artificial
stimulus" and the moment in which are find the "real stimulus") the effects can be
described as “disordered"(random), based on positive feedback processes.
When the interval between the appearance of “artificial stimulus” and finding the "real
stimulus" is within certain limits, with values directly related to the speed of chemical
processes in the "ordered closed chain” of the "BODY" on which the mechanism which
are generate the simultaneity of processes (based on "temporal model") can control it, by
the negative feedback processes of self adjustment, then the "BODY" can act as a
"whole", and maintaining form and functional balance .
When the interval between the appearance of "artificial stimulus" and finding "real
stimulus" at the level of a certain process of the "closed ordered chain" of the "BODY"
falls below certain limits by repetitions with intervals much shorter than "latency" of such
chemical processes, (which, by default, is forced to consume more) then, the following
functional structures may remain without "material" (even without the quantity of
substance from his own structure which is for maintain simultaneity of processes) as I
have mentioned above, because, these cells (of following functional structures - i.e. the
cells OF STRUCTURES dealing with digestion, LIVER ETC, in case of Pavlov's dog)
will be forced to "work" ( for maintaining the integrity of the chain) at the command of
electrical signals (which can move with a much greater speed, at the interest area). As
shown, these signals are sent by the nervous system, to compensate with the necessary
energy, exactly where the flow of useful substances, from a previous functional structure,
no longer has time to arrive, in the necessary quantities, to achieve the simultaneity.
Without this mechanism the body would not adapt to the stimulus flows which are
"learned" and which repeat without purpose (i.e. without finding "food" after many
ignitions of the lamp, at short intervals).
So, initially, he has a positive role!
But those cells that will only work on electrical control, without any support of
external mass of necessary substances, risk some "simplifications" (by controlled genetic
changes) of their structure (which gave them the phenotype, meaning "function”). It will
be transformed into embryonic cells without function (malignant), with an accelerated
metabolism. The electrical signals appear like a "soft". That provides independence and
coordination of the malignant mass entity and controls the actions of the immune system.
It follows the spontaneous “cancer"!
Very important: the tumor grows by the uncontrolled multiplication of cells
already genetically modified (malignant). The malignant cells "eat” a lot and do
nothing (i.e.: in them comes substance and nothing comes out: all substance is only
for mitosis). But this process would become "visible", sooner or later, and therefore,
will inducing the body's reactions. Why do they happen? Healthy cells of the outer
limit of the tumor needs to "work" for them too, to maintain the balance of
CLOSED ORDERED CHAIN of the BODY! If the trick works all is “OK”! That is
until healthy cells turn too in malignant cells... So the "invasion" of neighboring
tissues not occurs on the basis of the uncontrolled multiplication. We talk about a
process strictly different. Stromal cells are, in fact, former healthy cells of host tissue,

20
genetically modified, in a controlled manner (“those cells that will only work on
electrical control, without any support of external mass of necessary substances”), by
electrochemical signals, received from the nervous autonomic system nerves.

Example:
1) Quote (see American patent: Pub. No. : US 2005/0031648 A1; Pub Date:
Feb. 10, 2005):
Dorosevich A E, et al., Autonomic nerve endings and their cell microenvironment as
one of the integral parts of the stromal component in breast dysplasia and cancer. Arkh.
Rafal. 1994 (November-December; 56(6); 49-53)
2) [CANCER RESEARCH 34, 2109-2113, August 1974]
Tumor Angiogenesis Factor1
Judah Folkman
The Department of Surgery, Children's Hospital Medical Center, and the Harvard
Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115
Quote (Folkman is the creator of the “Avastin"):
"There is increasing evidence that tumor cells communi
cate with normal host cells. NGF2 is an example (14).
Certain mouse sarcomas secrete a factor that stimulates
growth in neighboring sensory and sympathetic nerve cells."
And:
“By contrast, the ability of malignant solid tumors to
stimulate proliferation of new capillaries is common to a
wide variety of neoplasms and appears to be an essential
requirement for progressive tumor growth (1,4). No doubt
it will be found that other forms of communication between
tumor and host may be important for tumor survival.”
By "coupling” this two ideas it result one conclusion:
This would explain a "friendly" attitude of the immune system, which does not
know how to treat some cells, hostile to the organism, but which, previously, were
"friends”...
And so we come to the principle of "denervation" of the solid tumor...

Conclusion II

"I" is imposed by mechanisms which come from the "exterior" of the “natural"
environment ("natural" means the environment with which a "body" is “on balance", at
informational level, on the Earth).
By its unnatural reactions, too often repeated, "I" may not enabling the body, by
which is supported it, to react, also, "as a whole" to the certain artificial stimulus.
The reactions to "artificial stimulus", being unnatural, must be "learned"!
That means: it must impose the reception of the "artificial stimulus" and impose, also,
certain actions, repeatedly. How?

21
 1) Through "absolute" education, which fails to mention that any information
"learned" is something related, ultimately, also, to something unnatural, an another "I" of
a person, even spiritual, not to the "TRUTH"!
2) Through the excessive advertising,
3) Through political manipulation,
4) Through the energo-informational manipulations.
Immediate solution for cure the cancer: denervation of the solid tumor - breaking any
contact with the nerves of autonomic nervous system (vegetative).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-*WHO IS "Pavlov" for "Humans"?

"Pavlov" is the entity that imposed us to "exist through reasoning"- Descartes.

"REASONING" means ANALYSIS BASED on "clichés", which are STATIC, linked
by an unnatural perception algorithm.
So, that she, "Pavlov", which is eminently CONTINUE (opposite to “clichés”)
and WITH A DYNAMIC NATURE (opposite to STATIC), is impossible to be
modeled by the reasoning mechanisms.
Therefore she can to remain "invisible" (and/or “spiritual") for humans.

Here are the "laws of robotics" as set out by Isaac Asimov:

-Law 1:
A robot may not harm a human being, or through inaction, allow a human to be
hurt.
-Law 2:
A robot must obey orders given by a human being as long as they do not conflict
with first law.
-Law 3:
A robot must protect its own existence as long as this does not conflict with Law
1 or Law 2.
-Law 0:
A robot may not harm humanity, or through inaction allow humanity to be
endangered.
Following the Law 0, all other laws are changed accordingly, Law 0 being the
supreme law.
If, in these laws, are replaced “robot" with "humans" and "humans" with "Pavlov",
result this:
Law 1:
A human must not hurt Pavlov, or, through inaction, allow Pavlov to be hurt.
Law 2:
A human must obey orders given by Pavlov as long as they do not conflict with
first Law.
Law 3:
A human has to protect its own existence as long as this does not conflict with Low
1 or Low 2.
Law 0:
A human is not allowed to hurt Pavlov or through inaction, allow Pavlov to be

22
endangered.
Following the Law 0, all other laws are changed accordingly, Low 0 being the
supreme law.

As can easily be found, no law covers the protection of "robot" for another
"robot" (of human for another human!?)
The “human society", generated by “Pavlov”, imposes such laws through religion and
through science too, in the same way!
1)BIBLE: Galatians. 5:14 For the whole law can be summed up in a single
commandment, namely, “You must love your neighbor as yourself.”
But in Luke 10:29 But the expert, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is
my neighbor?” 10:30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho,
and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him up, and went off, leaving
him half dead. 10:31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, but when he saw
the injured man he passed by on the other side. 10:32 So too a Levite, when he came up
to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 10:33 But a Samaritan who was
traveling came to where the injured man was, and when he saw him, he felt compassion
for him. 10:34 He went up to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring oil and wine on
them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
10:35 The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper, saying,
‘Take care of him, and whatever else you spend, I will repay you when I come back this
way. 10:36 Which of these three do you think became a neighbor to the man who fell into
the hands of the robbers?” 10:37 The expert in religious law said, “The one who showed
mercy to him.”
So: Laws speak of "thy neighbor" but a religious expert can not decipher the message
from the text. And not because he can't do that! Is natural to can't say who is the
"neighbor"? No way! But it’s a fact: nobody can say, after reading the Laws! That's the
subtlety! From which result that the real message, which remains valid, is only first plus
the last part: "love.... yourself" because now we know who the person we talk about is!
About You! Apart from others! Result that the law actually says to love only yourself!
Otherwise, only by interests: must love somebody which, eventually, helped you, and
does so precisely because they do not respect the Laws (are "Samaritans", not Jews), as
trying to say Jesus (to being someone's neighbor a human it must to stand outside the
Laws).
2) Now: "1 +1 = 2" says the same thing: "1” exists only if is separate from anything
else, if he is self consistent ... What is not true: nothing is totally separate from a
particular context! If something exists in such conditions we could not detect his
existence."1 +1" is an artificial algorithm: you can not put these completely separate and
self consistent things in any kind of relationship than artificially. And the significance of
the relationship ("= 2") is, of course, artificial!
As I said it before: no law covers the protection of "robot" for another "robot" (of
human for another human!?)!
The union, the cohesion of "robots" is to be so dangerous? Therefore, that is,
probably, the motivation for the "sermon", so much heard, about "competition" and
individual "inequality” of qualities (to justify the existence of the "elite") as the engine of
social "progress”, for human society?

23
 Lack of regulation of communication relations (non hostility) between the "robots"
("people") has an obvious purpose: the control from outside of the system when the
"robots" (people) are forced to remain just "parts" of a "multitude" not of an "ensemble".
Here is the big mistake on the part of "Pavlov": Low 1 (which refers to the concept of
"bad") is totally devoid of functionality as long as "bad" (as he is understood by the
"people" in the original version of the Laws) has a purely "relative" nature ("bad" can
very easily change to "good" for the same person, see contexts with half "full" and / or
half "empty” cup). So, the gestures of the "robots" ("people"), actually may not gain the
correct truth values, than only by a process of permanent "comparison” with an
impersonal and absolute truth, in a timely manner (which means, really, an
“communication") and, at the level of a mass of individuals, as bigger, as much more
efficient (in a probabilistic meaning) the process will be.

The contradiction between "control", from outside the system (only possible in the
absence of communication between the "parties"), and an effective enforcement of the
law, especially of the Law 0 (communication between individuals that form a
"whole") is, according to my, the origin of the crisis that humanity is passing through.

Therefore, we have a big problem: the obvious intention of "Pavlov" is to control a

"living system” (organism, community, humanity etc.), which is tantamount to
inducing the functioning "on parts" of it. That is, more clearly, equivalent to intent to
"dismantle" a "living system”. If this phenomenon occurs at the functional level, thru
the relationship "function -> relative position of the parts", resulting that the
“disintegration" occurs, specifically, and at geometrically level: phenomena, in
their evolving, have the tendency to leave the geometrically domain occupied by the
BODY. But that it means aging and DEATH! The IMPOSING of DEATH can be the
true intention of a real ”Creator"?
Obviously not!
A true "Creator” (which must "work" continuously - the "creation continues" of
the Abbé Pierre Teilhard de Chardin) and the "controller" (which exerts his control
on the basis of the "Laws") are two completely separate entities…
It turns out that "death from natural causes" has actually another cause,
“unnatural" and imposed by force. That’s the "Reason" (the functioning of the BODY
by “parts").
If from what I have presented does not become clearly enough, I will make again the
statement that I not support the idea that the "reason" must be replaced with a
mechanism similar to that used by animals. And this isn’t because that mechanism
would be inefficient. But because animals are integrated in to an ecosystem and humans
aren't. It should be changed only the reference frame of those processes. We have been
forced to think that we are only "bodies" and to think as such. Is not like a "natural"
thing if not feel any of the parts of your body when you are "focused" ("rational") on a
specific part. In reality we are "Universes". So we have to think at this level.
Therefore, the process that, at the current level, is the “reason", the "rationalization",
the “division" must become the "integration", the "integrion".

24
 It is significant to point out the similarity of the cancer and the crisis of Humanity, as
processes which are generated by the fact that the systems (body and Humanity) are
forced to respond on “parts" (in the system in which the "part" leads the "whole"!) to the
external stimulus.
Homo sapiens is the only "living system" that can make decisions (and in
pursuance thereof, initiate actions), only upon receipt of artificial signals, when not
actually know "everything" (and timely), relatively to the consequences of these
actions.
It is a "feature" (to be wrong!?) on which only the mechanism for generating the
conditioned reflex “offers" it (hydrochloric acid is secreted in the stomach of the dog,
only by ignite the lamp, without being hungry, prior to this).
Bad intention of "Pavlov" is more than visible when it formally legitimizes this
erroneously way for starting actions (offering as a prize, the "Free Will").
Unlike most animals, in their natural environment, which, to respond properly as a
"whole", to such stimulus:
- Their body it reacts in real time, if the stimulus is real (or "TRUE"?), or
- Not reacts at all (it appears like a "blocking" - "like the calf at the new gate ") when
the stimulus are not real (is not part of that order in time and space from the structure of
"chain ordered closed" of the "natural" environment), and
- have a coherent reaction to the level of communities ("gregarious spirit” that constantly
surprises us with the accuracy of the solutions adopted for the survival of the species).
"Gregarious spirit" would be the consequence of the fact that each individual reaction
(made in real time) has no time to differentiate, from an individual to another. In other
words, it hasn’t the “benefit" of the "free will" (freedom to fail?).

The solution of Humanity: The "Pavlov’s disembarkation" and "activation" of the

“TRUTH"!
Specifically:
It is about (re)activation of the "common sense". As it is expressed in English it
could be defined as the instinct of the "whole". It is known that it is a “sense" (an
instinct) and it should not to be "learned". His attempted forced (and intentionally
wrong ) assimilation with "gregarious spirit". "Common sense" is a phenomenon
strictly individual that has no social origin. He transcends "the social": is the
connection that works constantly with the "continuous creator" (The Truth) by
“integrion” and to make the “WHOLE”.

PS-It can be answered, in my opinion, and to these questions:

1) What is the motivation of "Pavlov" to have such behavior toward people,”
2) Accordingly, what is his "identity”?
3) "What" and / or "Who" are "people"?
4) "What" and / or, "Who" is the “TRUTH"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Mental Revolution" may lead to failure of the "manipulation"!

Examples:
I. Among other "proofs" that the Shroud of Turin is a fake, will present a purely

25
geometrical argument (he does not need any physical-chemical analysis):
As seen, the only way in which Christ's body could be covered to leave this kind of
traces was: shroud was lying on a flat surface, the body was placed on back on a half
of the piece, with the other half was covered the body thru folding. So, the images,
"the front" and "behind" of the body tend to approach with their "head", in the
middle of the flax piece.
Important:
. 1) On the images, the legs are in such a position that would seem to be like the way
they were nailed with the holdfast, to the cross.
2) The left leg is towards the front of the body, right leg is under him, in the
image "front"
. 3) The right foot is toward the front of the body, in the image "back".
4) But the images are formed simultaneously (or so it would have been
natural); so, is meaningless as, in one image, a leg is toward the "front"of the body
and, in another image, another leg. Even if we want to include here and the
phenomenon of mirror reversal.
. 5) The only explanation is:
a) the "body" was rotated by on the face "face" on "back" and the shroud
was "impressed" twice, consecutively, on one side of it,
. b) the shroud was "impressed" (also twice), on the same part of shroud
without to rotate the body of the "Jesus", once from "above" the body and once
again "from below", placing the flax piece in a convenient position.
It would be an explanation for this "mess"? This explanation is there!
As can be seen easily the image "front" of the head is a two-dimensional
projection of the face of "Jesus" (which have, in reality, three dimensions). Just as in
the case of the "negative" of a classical photo! But the shroud, normally is molded on
the "face" . It follows that the distance between the ears (which is approximate
because the ears are covered with hair) must be much higher on the shroud which was
molded on the "face", resulting an deforming of the image of the face ( a round
image). What is not found!
So, the shroud it has not been molded on the corpse! Most likely he was
"impressed" by caloric radiation (infrared waves) when is lying at a short distance
from a "corpse" prepared to radiate (statue gilded with gold or silver, or a body that
have suffered the same treatment ...?). This explains that the image is a "negative".
In these circumstances it came up the problem of the heat and that "Jesus"
could not be suspended, at short distance, being hot, between the folded girls of the
shroud than consecutively, for each of the "impress". Hence, resulting the error with
the changing of the leg. Perhaps the "impress" must to be made quickly, so that
"Jesus" not become too cool.

II. You have below a copy from an email address which is adressed to the
"publisher"of Dan Brown, at the 05/23/2007.
Flag this message Wednesday, May 23, 2007 7:18 AMFrom: “pascu gabriel” View
contact detailsTo: customerservice@randomhouse.comMister,
I like to tell you something very important: Dan Brown is missing the point in “Da Vinci
Code”! How is that? If Da Vinci must tell us that the personage in the right said

26
of Jesus Christ is Maria Magdalena, he must put in the picture 14 PERSONAGES
( Jesus, 12 Apostles AND MARIA MAGDALENA), in conditions in which the
clerics must see only 13 (Jesus and 12 Apostles). And, in the picture ARE 14
PERSONAGES! The 14-th personage is “the hand with the knife”. So, the prove for
the existence of an code is, in this case, obvious and this prove is not the breasts of
Maria Magdalena (Da Vinci can’t make them so obvious).
I like to mention my name there. And more, I must tell you that the Orthodox church
in Romania cnows about this issue because in the reproductions (made for years ago)
from the “Last Super” by Da Vinci “the hand with the knife” is missing all the times.

With respect,

Gabriel Pascu-Romania

From the text follows that the existence of a "code" can be so easily demonstrated
that:
1) Dan Brown's book ("Code ...") is at one end to another, superfluous . That is,
unless, if you fall into the trap of "make reasonings for the sake of art". And those
who fall in this show that this type of exercise (reasoning) is not enough of at " their
hand".
2) The church couldn't to not observed the "code" (I found that the Orthodox Church
has removed "the hand with the knife" from the reproductions of "Last supper" -
"Iscariot"more meaning and " the bearing-knife").
It follows that the church and this"browns" (including those who have raised
the issue of "authenticity"of the shroud) play a perverse game of manipulation
in which staff I can not enter.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I promised above, I will return with some nuances, more “technical”, for a
trenchant statement which was made to argue the non causal nature of "life" (a
phenomenon which is based, in my opinion, on gravitation):

“In this theory is accepted that the gravitational influences (which primarily come in
from the solar system bodies, including the Earth, ordered by the special geometrical
form of relative motion between them) do not have a material nature (until proven
otherwise, the experimental discovery of the particle generating the gravitational field,
"graviton” and the gravitational wave)”.

Unlike me, is obvious that Einstein tried to "give to Caesar (the "science") what is
Caesar's": "the causal (material) nature of the gravitational field". How? By the
"Equivalence Principle":
"Roughly speaking, the principle states that a person in a free-falling
elevator cannot tell that he is in free fall. Every experiment in such a free-falling
environment has the same results as it would for an observer at rest or moving uniformly
in deep space, far from all sources of gravity:

Gravity and acceleration

27
 Most effects of gravity vanish in free fall, but effects that seem the same as those of
gravity can be produced by an accelerated frame of reference. An observer in a closed
room cannot tell which of the following is true:
· Objects are falling to the floor because the room is resting on the surface of the
Earth and the objects are being pulled down by gravity.
· Objects are falling to the floor because the room is aboard a rocket in space,
which is accelerating at 9.81 m/s2 and is far from any source of gravity. The objects
are being pulled towards the floor by the same "inertial force" that presses the
driver of an accelerating car into the back of his seat.
Conversely, any effect observed in an accelerated reference frame should also be
observed in a gravitational field of corresponding strength. This principle allowed
Einstein to predict several novel effects of gravity in 1907, as explained in the next
Section.”
At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity #
Experimental_tests

But when it comes to applying the same principle to the electromagnetic waves
Einstein proposed a mental experiment that “lames" a bit:

“The first new effect is the gravitational frequency shift of light. Consider two
observers aboard an accelerating rocket-ship. Aboard such a ship, there is a natural
concept of "up" and "down": the direction in which the ship accelerates is "up", and
unattached objects accelerate in the opposite direction, falling "downward". Assume that
one of the observers is "higher up" than the other. When the lower observer sends a light
signal to the higher observer, the acceleration causes the light to be red-shifted, as may be
calculated from special relativity; the second observer will measure a lower frequency for
the light than the first. Conversely, light sent from the higher observer to the lower is
blue-shifted, that is, shifted towards higher frequencies.[8] Einstein argued that such
frequency shifts must also be observed in a gravitational field. This is illustrated in the
figure at left, which shows a light wave that is gradually red-shifted as it works its way
upwards against the gravitational acceleration.”

Let's take the first statement: Aboard such a ship, there is a natural
concept of "up" and "down".
Under the conditions described, to distinguish between "up" and "down", in an
“natural" way, it is incorrect (unless you consider that means "something" intentionally).
The nature of corps (mathematical entities) said that these are not divided into distinct
zones (separated "observers", in this case, two of them). As components "parts", these
have no relative motion between them, and any frequency shift, at the transmission
of signals between the two observers, it have not how to appear. Why?
In the experiment says nothing of the distance between the "transmitter" and
"receiver". It is normal: the frequency of light in vacuum do not change, only with
distance. And then: how close can be positioned the "receiver" of the “transmitter", so
that the initial conditions of the experiment to be the same? Answer: no matter how close
(so the distinction between "transmitter" and "receiver" it can not do)! In these

28
conditions, it turns out that the "receiver" it measure the frequency of the signal
emitted! Even when this distance increases progressively, with a given value, and, also,
it remains constant during each experiment. So, if the "transmitter" is not moving relative
to the "receiver", always is measured the same frequency of the signal emitted, in any
situation. The only change might occur in the sense that the frequency of the signal
emitted, itself, would change due to acceleration. But it remains the same on the "way"
between "transmitter" and "receiver". Even if the corps (rocket), in full, it moves
accelerated. Things are completely different in gravitational field and this conduct has
been demonstrated experimentally (1959, Pound and Rebka).
It used, therefore, a little trick: something "natural" (the alleged frequency shift of a
signal transmitted between two points of a single body, which is in an accelerated
motion) and, therefore, accepted without experiment, has lead, based of an issued (false)
principle, to something real and experimentally demonstrated (frequency shift of a light
signal at transmission between two observers who were at different intensity-heights- of
a gravitational field)
Why he doing that?
Because these phenomenon (by which manifests the Equivalence Principle) it
were "causal" (scientifically accepted), in the mental experiment. The "fictitious"
forces, which move the objects in the rocket, have, always, their real corresponding
forces, which it makes them to appear. But not this is the case with the gravitational
phenomenon. And the experiment shows it: the photon absorption was possible,
exclusively, by the "motion" of only one of the two atoms. To be consistent with the
mental experiment, the two atoms would have to be moved, simultaneously, with the same
acceleration, on same direction and with same sense. In these new conditions, the
experiment it would have been successful? Personally I think not!
But anyway, this experiment it must be done! It will prove that phenomena that occur
in accelerated frames of reference, and gravitation are not at all similar: one of them is
causal and the other is not. The Equivalence Principle is false!
And Einstein recognizes this if the following are simultaneous:
"spacetime tells matter how to move, and matter tells spacetime how to curve".

And please, look carefully: if, this "conversation", between matter and space-time,
is achieved only by signals that travel with a finite speed (means “causally", by
principle two of the Restricted Theory of Relativity), the General Theory of Relativity
is “ blowing in the wind... my friend...” This trap of causality (which was imposed by
reasons purely "political"), will be mentioned again below, in the case of issue of
"perpetuum mobile" ("perpetual motion").

More: this statement makes a clear distinction between "matter" and "space-time"
(because, if don’t make it, the statement look like this: "matter” tells matter how to
move, and matter tells “matter” how to curve”?!- who’s the “cause” and who’s the
“effect”?).
In conclusion, the "gravity" (which exists solely in the "space-time”) IS NOT
"MATTER"! And this is said by Einstein!

29
 And here, below, another very elegant demonstration of the fact that "Equivalence
Principle" is false,
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/GenRel/TimeDilation.html:

Author

This document was written in February 2002 by David M. Harrison, Dept. of Physics,
Univ. of Toronto, mailto:harrison@physics.utoronto.ca. This document is Copyright ©
2002 David M. Harrison.

This is $Revision: 1.1 $, $Date: 2002/02/08 20:23:19 $ (year/month/day UTC).

Introduction

Einstein's General Theory of Relativity predicts that clocks in a gravitational fields run
slow compared to clocks not in gravitational field, and that the stronger the gravitational
field the slower the clock runs. In this little document, we "derive" the existence of the
effect without mathematics. First we will do a careful re-examination of the Equivalence
Principle, and then do the derivation.

The Equivalence Principle

Einstein's Equivalence Principle states that accelerations are equivalent to gravitational

fields. This means that there is no experiment in a fairly small sized room that you can do
to determine which one of the following two circumstances are true:

• The room is on the surface of the Earth, where the acceleration due to gravity is
down and equal to 9.8 m/s2.
• The room is on a rocket ship in free space that is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s2.

Here we will explore what the phrase "fairly small sized room" means.

We imagine that we are in the room, and

have two balls, as shown to the right. They
are fixed to the ceiling by means of
clamps. At some moment in time both
clamps simultaneously release the balls.

30
If the room is on a rocket ship that is
accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s2 with
respect to some inertial frame of reference
in free space, then relative to us the balls
will fall straight down, accelerating at 9.8
m/s2, until they strike the floor of the
room. Thus the distance between the balls
remains constant while they are falling.

However, as you may know, objects on

the surface of the Earth are attracted
gravitationally to the point right at the
center of the Earth. Thus if the room were
on the Earth, the balls would not fall quite
straight down, but would fall to the center
of the Earth. The figure to the right
exaggerates the magnitude of the effect.
The distance between the balls decreases
while they are falling.
If we align the two balls vertically in the
centre of the room and drop them, they
will both fall straight down whether the
room is on the Earth or on the rocket.
However, on the rocket they will both
accelerate downwards at exactly 9.8 m/s2
relative to us. The acceleration due to
gravity on the Earth, however, decreases
as the distance from the centre or the Earth
increases. Thus the upper (blue) ball will
accelerate at a rate slightly less than the
lower (red) one, and the distance between
the two balls will increase by a small
amount while they are both falling

Thus, given sufficiently sensitive instruments we can tell the difference between being on
the rocket and being on the Earth. Does this mean that the Equivalence Principle is
wrong? No. It does mean, though, that it is only strictly true in an infinitesimally small
region of space. The word for this property is local, and we conclude that the
Equivalence Principle is only truly locally.

The Proof

31
We imagine we have two clocks, labeled
1 and 2, that are fixed and stationary
relative to the surface of the Earth. We are
in a reference frame that is in free fall
towards the surface of the earth, and we
have our own clock, stationary with
respect to us. Note that since we are in
free fall, we are floating.

According to the Equivalence Principle,

our reference frame is inertial, and
therefore our clock can do good
measurements of time. Note that any other
clock, stationary relative to us, at some
other location is not necessarily doing
good measurements of time, since the
Equivalence Principle is only true locally.
Thus we will compare the rates of the
Earth clocks to ours only when we pass
right by them.

When we pass by Clock 1, it is moving

with respect to us. Therefore, Special
Relativity tells us that it is running slowly
relative to our clock. Similarly when we
pass by Clock 2, since it is moving with
respect to us it will be running slowly
compared to our clock.

But, since we are in free fall our speed with respect to the Earth and the two Earth-bound
clocks is increasing: we are accelerating down at 9.8 m/s2 relative to the Earth. So, when
we pass Clock 2, its speed with respect to us is greater than the speed of Clock 1 when we
passed by it.

Thus, for us in our good inertial reference frame we conclude that Clock 2 is running
more slowly than Clock 1. So the clock in the stronger gravitational field, Clock 2, runs
more slowly than the clock in the weaker gravitational field

This completes the derivation of the fact that clocks in gravitational fields run slowly.”

32
 To resume:
"Thus, given sufficiently sensitive instruments we can tell the difference between
being on the rocket and being on the Earth. Does this mean that the Equivalence
Principle is wrong? No. It does mean, though, that it is only strictly true in an
infinitesimally small region of space. The word for this property is local, and we
conclude that the Equivalence Principle is only truly locally.”
As I said above this mental experiment seems extraordinarily well found. However,
you mustn't to have a very special training to achieve that the message of the author
(The “Equivalence Principle is false") is send, without risking his career, by making a
totally absurd demonstration, in favor of the Equivalence Principle : an equipment,
sensitive enough, can possibly make the difference between acceleration and gravity,
but, it does not matter, because the viability of Equivalence Principle exists anyway,
but only there where you can't find it (in an infinitesimally small spatial domain). In
other words, if we want to be the Einstein's friends, we are forced to believe this
principle: like at the church.
In favor of premeditation of this kind of absurd argumentation is the fact that the
author is playing like he forget that the momentary speed (the only one which it can
be "measured" , in the infinitesimally small domains, by the man on the rocket ) is a
mathematical idealization (which occur by the derivation relative to time) that makes
sense only when we know the form (the graphic) of the "space" function, (S). So, we
can't make direct measurements of the "momentary speed" than in the limits set by
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (from below). Which means: never in the
infinitesimally small domains in which the Principle would be valid!
In addition should be taken into account and:
http://refreshingnews9.blogspot.com/2010/02/first-test-that-proves-general-theory.html

I think the days of "Relativity" are numbered! "Causality" is clinically dead! It still
"living" only supported by "equipment" ...

In this essay, I pointed out the following ideas:

1) The reality have a non causal nature, and
2) Only the perception of it, of Homo sapiens, is causal, and, also,
3) That this situation is induced, forcibly, by an entity which I called "Pavlov".
One example that I left, not accidentally, for the end, refers to what, in physics, is
called "perpetumm mobile"-"perpetual motion":
"Perpetual motion machine of the first kind. By this we mean a device whose parts
are not only in permanent motion, but moreover is able to provide useful work without
input of external energy (e.g. warmth) and without change of the physical or chemical
status of its parts. A perpetual motion machine of the first kind does not exist. It would
contradict the first law of thermodynamics" (vol.4, p.3236, right col.)2
"Perpetual motion machine of the second kind. By this we mean a machine
undergoing a cyclic process which does nothing more than convert warmth into

33
mechanical (or other) work. A perpetual motion machine of the second kind does not
exist. It would contradict the second law of thermodynamics." (vol.4, p.3236, right col.)3
http://www.hp-gramatke.net/perpetuum/index.htm.
So, the "perpetumm mobile" “does not exist”!
Really?
Let's see: All models in physics, which describe the birth of the Universe look like
this: “Nothing"- >"something"- >" UNIVERSE".
"Something" could mean, in general, the "big bang", which can translate thru "the
Beginning".
"The Beginning" is (“necessarily”, means “causally”) required, in these models, by
the fact that before of it, was nothing but "NOTHING"!

So, the conclusion is that the entire Universe is come, in fact, from "NOTHING”
("perpetuum mobile” of both kind!?)!

The scientists have fallen into their one trap (the causality)!
For them, there is a solution: to admit that "nothing" means "“indescribable, from
a formal (causal) point of view, no “non-existent”!
And then, will be no need to describe a "Beginning" (which does not exist, is false)
but only to change their “perspective" about the "reality". Which "reality" only "IS”,
nothing else.
But then it must recognize the limits of the formal how of analysis (which means:
their limits).
Someone might say that scientific experiments show that the phenomena which are
"built" in this way have evolved according to the principle of causality (with
significant intervals of time and space between intermediate stages – at the
“macroscopic scale”). And I can only to be agreeing with that. But the experiments
express only the causal “reality” from "inside” of them (it means, which have a
statically and/or structural appearance), not from anywhere "outside" (with dynamic
and/or continuous appearance). That's, in reality, the motivation of why the
experiments are done: these phenomena do not exist in the Universe, independently of
the “experimenter"! And those are after the image and likeness of him (the Homo
sapiens - see above): are causal!
And, possibly, it give satisfaction, if they look "like" the some pictures which Homo
sapiens it constructs them mentally, based on the same principle: of “ causality”
(induced by the mechanism of generation of conditioned reflexes- Pavlov). But not all
of the real pictures look "like the dreams" of Homo sapiens.
This contradiction is highlighted, among other things, by the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle, which gives a lower limit of the product of standard deviations
of position and momentum of the system, specifying that it is impossible to have a
particle with an arbitrary momentum and an arbitrary position, well defined,
simultaneously. More specifically, the product standard deviations:

34
 Where is the reduced Planck constant. The principle can be generalized to many
other pairs of quantities, except for position and momentum (i.e. angular momentum
of two different axes) and can be deducted directly from the axioms of quantum
mechanics.
Homo sapiens, "builds" (experimental) what he wants (actually, what it must) to
”see”.
Relying only on shaping and experimenting of phenomena in idealized contexts,
broken by a general context, whose form it could never be described (when looking for
the "parts" you can not find the "whole"), scientists, however, have found, laws
which are checked in particular contexts (which are similar but not causally related),
everywhere in the Universe. And this has not troubled them at all!
Is this just a statistic "coincidence"?
Then why those are treated as "general laws"?
Or maybe, the phenomena (described by the same laws) are strictly deterministically
linked between them, on the basis of similar "forms". This could mean that only the
“form"- the shape of experiment in spacetime, could select the phenomenon wherever
is "applied" this “form”, thru material interactions, properly coordinated. Or, put
another way, the general "geometry" (which is continuous, means "unique") is
the one which gain the material support, anytime, anywhere, when is "selected" a
particular aspect of his (whose appearance is, of course, purely geometrically because
the "geometry", being continuous, the "time" for "she" is meaningless). But
the”time” it has meaning only to Homo sapiens!
Here, I’m back to what I said above, on the formal language used in modeling
phenomena, in science:
“ Formal elements for achieving these used models ("memory", "predictions") are
accepted as "ideas" (with a nature of information). It materialized that the "IDEAS" are
"images" of the partial objectives to being achieved and exceeded for meet the
physiological needs (what the dog has "imagined" when the bulb is lighting, and in the
stomach is secreted hydrochloric acid, without to give him food). These partial objectives
are targets, artificially introduced (does not exist in nature- i.e. by the bulb) and
imposed by the algorithm (mechanism of the conditioned reflexes) from the "other side".
If between observing a phenomenon (CAUSE) and the formal language model to
describe it (EFFECT) there is a certain lag (based on the use of the algorithm), period
with measurable duration, then the relationship between cause and effect is (how else) of
"causal”! Therefore any description of a phenomenon supported by science (which works
only on formal models), is accepted to be fair only if it involves "causality"!”

But “life”, like I said above, is not “causal”: “Evidence in this regard is that the
contact between its material base (of the "order") and the environment (also
"material"), a process that obeys the laws of the interaction, of "transformation", the
"order" ("form") in time and space of the bodies (interrelationships "functions->
relative positions" of the processes that constitute them) remains unchanged (within
certain limits), despite these contacts.”

35
 There's that famous definition of the "inventor" (a person who "sees" what it
should not to see), give by Einstein: "Everyone knows that a thing it can't be done, but
some guys simply do not know that: they are the inventors".
By virtue of this law it can create (and it were created!) many inventions, on which,
to neutralize them, "Pavlov” worked very hard. But not hard enough....See
http://raelianews.org/news.php

36