of all tapes & topics
"Tendency and Probability"
Hear this tape in Real Player format
Purchase this tape on audio CD for only $4.95
A new insight into the difference between tendency
and probability: We are looking at holistic systems. We would be looking at two concepts.
Either a series of points that are connected by some kind of relationship or glue as it
were, or a series of foci in which (like gravitational fields) a number of points exist at
which gravitation is at a max but not one single point, many points spread about. And
their influence is felt to some degree, holistically all the way across the space in
These two views - of gravitational pulls that focus
at a particular point, or have their greatest intensity at a particular point, and then
spread out at all directions, influencing with their ripples, as it were, all the way to
the edges of the closed system, as opposed to a number of individual points that do not
influence anything at all in their existence and are merely connected by some kind of
relationship or process at work that involves both of them - these two views are both
The particulate view which would look at, for
example, an asteroid, every speck of material as being something that exerts an influence
on other pieces - an influence in terms of if one smashes into another, it can transmit
some of it's energy to the other one, which would then continue barreling off through
space and smash into something else.
When we look at the aspect of interconnectedness
and a holistic closed system, such as astrophysics, we would find that the particulate or
spatial way of appreciating it would look at the billiard ball effect, of one thing
ramming into another, and transferring force which is a vector containing both direction
and degree. So, vector science is going to be a particulate appreciation.
However, the appreciation of the gravitational
wells, as they were, the gravitational pools that exist within the universe, those are the
tendency appreciation. Now, what's the difference between tendency and probability in
relationship to this? In terms of probability, we are looking at items that are
particulate in nature: defined, spatial points, vectors, and we are saying that each one
of these particular points, some of them will have an effect, and some of them won't.
Meaning that it's a binary situation that exists, a digital situation, in which something
is either a zero or a one, and we can say that a close call doesn't mean anything.
The old expression that close is only good in horse
shoes is equally applied to astrophysics when you are looking at a particulate or vector
view, a spatial view. At that point, what is close has absolutely no effect, because even
if an asteroid comes within fractions of an inch of another asteroid, but they do not
actually touch, there's going to be no interaction at the vector or particulate level,
because no energy will be transmitted by that means, via direct contact. In other words,
it's still a zero until it touches, and then it's a one.
Now the difference between the two, what bridges
the gap between a zero and a one. How can we say that something is closer and ever closer
and ever closer? Because there's a second force at work, which is the tendency part of it.
Rather than saying here's a particulate view dealing with vectors and absolutely touching
one piece to another as in billiard playing, we look at gravitational fields much more
like magnets where you can say that the closer two magnets get to each other, the more of
an influence they will have on each other, without actually touching. Now, the key to all
this, is that both forces are at work at the same time.
Now, the error in the way that Einstein was looking
at relativity was that he was combining the two and saying that they are intrinsically
connected. In other words, whenever you see an item of mass in the Universe, it is
producing a gravitational field that is warping space and that's the second part of the
same force. In other words, there is a single event that occurs which is the existence of
an item. And by existing, it warps space, creating this gravitational force. That's a very
causal relationship, even if you look at it as being non-causal, more holistic and seeing
the two exist simultaneously, there still connected in so far as Einstein's theory would
This is because he is looking at the universe from
an inside perspective; a subjective view in which only three things are possible. You look
at energy, you look at mass, and you look at Space/Time. You cannot see space and time as
being independent. This is the same problem we have when we look at the speed of light as
being a constant. It's only a constant because the two aspects of the speed of light,
speed being both space crossed and the time that it takes to cross it, those two items are
held together, bounded together, locked together as a view saying that when one goes up,
the other one goes down, and in direct proportion -- meaning that it appears to be a
In fact, it's really wavelength vs. frequency. The
wavelength of light times the frequency of light. Frequency is an estimation of speed
based on time. It says how often you see a complete cycle. Whereas wavelength is an
estimation of speed based on space. Where you are saying how long is this cycle? So,
because space and time are bonded together in space/time in Einstein's relativity, we end
up unable to separate them, which then results naturally in the assumption that any
particle that exists in nature, will be associated with a specific gravitational effect
that is intrinsic to that item, but it's really not intrinsic.
When we look at the difference in Mental Relativity
between probability and tendency theory. In tendency, again, we're going to say here is
the gravitational part of the argument. The gravitational part says that when two
asteroids pass close to each other, even if they are on opposite sides of the universe,
they are going to be having an impact because of their gravitational effect, which is
holistic, and as predicted by Mental Relativity, is not something that exists as waves
that ripple out; at least not from a spatial perspective.
From a spatial perspective, it's only going to be
perceived as a force that is synchronously applied all throughout the universe. In other
words, it doesn't take any amount of time for gravity from a particle that comes into
existence out of energy. For example, if we were to create fusion, and create a particle
that's heavier than the particle that existed before. When we do that, that new particle,
that extra mass that has been added at a particular point in space is immediately going to
have an impact on the far side of the universe. It doesn't take a billion years to get
over there. It seems instantaneous from a spatial perspective.
In reality, if we look at it from a temporal
perspective, we are going to see that this particular effect does appear as waves, but
only as waves in terms of time; in terms of frequency, not in terms of wave length, not in
terms of space. So, when these two asteroids pass in space, even if they don't connect
directly and have a vector impact, or spatial impact on each other, they do have a
gravitational impact, and that occurs all the time, not just when they get close. It
accentuates when they get close, and if we look at the mathematical curve of this
particular relationship, we are going to see that as they approach each other, the
greatest distance is passed between them, with no appreciable increase, it's very, very
small. But, we end up with a hyperbolic approach of a limit line, when we get in closer
proximity. And in fact, it gets to the point where the gravitational effect between the
two particles reaches the point that when they actually connect and touch each other, they
become a single particle as far as the gravitational field. The fields merge because they
can no longer be identified as separate. That's the magic moment, when it switches over
from a gravitational effect in temporal universe to vector effect or linear effect in a
In other words, there's no effect at all -- zero
effect of transmitting force from one particle to another as long as they are separate.
But, as long as they are separate, there are separate gravitational effects they have upon
each other in a sense of holism, of synchronous holism. As soon as they get close enough
that this limit line is being approached, and they actually touch each other, then the
limit line has been breached. They are now on the other side and essentially there's a
straight line coming down the middle, and from the left moving towards the middle, is a
hyperbolic curve approaching that limit line, that vertical limit line from one particle.
On the other side, coming from the right towards
the center is a gravitational effect approaching that limit line from the other side. And
when the two actually touch, then at that point they actually reach the limit line, it
becomes a straight line -- straight line instead of a hyperbolic curve. And it describes
then instead of a gravitational relationship between the two, there is a particulate
relationship between the two, dealing with the transfer of energy or power from one to the
other -- a vector transfer. So, the two exist simultaneously in terms of their potential,
but in terms of their actuality, only one of them can exist at a time, and it's the
switching back and forth between the temporal and spatial perspectives; between the
tendency and the probability, that creates the flip of the binary switch; going from
spectral appreciation, to analog appreciation.
Now, in terms of probability and tendency and the
more common usage of looking at likelihood -- likelihood, again blends two concepts. And
these two concepts that we are talking about are when you say, "what's the
probability of any given interaction between a number of pieces and a number of other
pieces?" You're saying that some will be interacting, and some won't be interacting.
In other words, it's definitely a binary situation, a zero or a one. You're going to say
out of one hundred pieces, 85 will be in a particular state. Well, that's a probability.
It's saying it doesn't matter which one, 85 will be in that state, and the other 15 of the
hundred will not be in that state. And because of that you are saying essentially those 15
are not participants, because they are not in the state that you desired, they may be
zeros. And the one's would all be the 85, 85% probability -- that would be a way of
looking at those that actually are going to interact. But, there is no specificity as to
which ones will interact, and which ones won't. In fact, it really doesn't matter, that
appears to be the realm of chaos in a vector appreciation of things. We can't tell which
ones will interact, and which one's won't interact. That's one way of looking at
But, there's a second way of looking at likelihood
which is the temporal perspective. And in terms of that dealing with tendency theory,
we're saying that each one of these items has perhaps 85% of it's force is attracted to
something, and 15% of it's force is repulsive to something. Meaning that overall, there is
a tendency to try to become part of that one state out of the zero state that is 85
compared to 15 factors at force that are repelling or against transmuting it's state. That
is a little different view, because instead of saying that everything is either a zero or
a one, this says that everything has a tendency to be a one, 85% of the time. So, looking
at that view, we can say that every single particle out there has a tendency towards
something, and a tendency away from something. And if you say the tendency of these items
can be grouped as having the same tendency, then they can be classified as the same thing.
If they have different tendencies, they are not the same thing.
So, likelihood and chaos in a temporal sense, have
to move into a different place to hide, because we're illuminating in a different area, by
looking at this different appreciation of likelihood. In other words, we can't just say
that chaos is which ones will do what, because that is the spatial view. In this one,
chaos, for this particular one -- will it or won't it? So, we move down to looking at the
particulate nature because we are looking at the relationship of tendency; the
gravitational field among all of them. Whereas, when we look at the particulate view of
the holism then we are going to look at the temporal sense of how many within a given
amount of time are going to be in one state or another at any given point in time. So, in
other words, when we take a temporal view, we end up with spatial chaos. When we take a
spatial view, we end up with temporal chaos.
Now, that leads us right back to the relativity
again, meaning that in order to fully understand what's going on in astrophysics, we have
to look at wave length and frequency as separate, and we have to realize that the
frequency can change, without affecting the wavelength. And for the frequency to change
without affecting the wave length requires that the speed of light not be a constant. The
only way the speed of light cannot be a constant, is if we separate the spatial and the
temporal sides and say that energy and mass are also involved, so that when we are looking
at energy and mass in relationship to space and time, when time goes up, if space does not
change to go down, then the compensation must be made up elsewhere, in terms of energy and
mass. In other words, energy and mass do not merely transmute one to another, as Einstein
said, with the speed of light being a constant. But, in fact, time, space, mass, and
energy all transmute between each other, but we are only going to be able to observe two
of them, because we are standing on the other two to measure that, when we are looking at
the universe from the inside.
Because of the way our species is made up, we share
a commonalty of being able to look at space time as our measuring stick and watch what
happens to energy and mass measured against space-time. Therefore, we are going to see
changes in energy and mass, and we are not going to be able to watch the differing
relationship between space and time, because one goes up and the other one appears to go
down. They appear to be locked on a teeter-totter, and there is no way that both can go up
or both can go down.