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 between.

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 present.

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 in 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, they’re still connected in so far as Einstein's theory would allow.

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 constant.

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 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 a 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 spatial universe.

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 likelihood.

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 lluminating 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.

When we look at the dynamic pairs in mental relativity however, we can have a pair -- three different kinds of pairs. One pair in which when one goes up, the other goes down, which is the traditional view, and that is indeed the dynamic pair relationship. Then there's the dependent pair relationship in which when one goes up, the other one goes up with it, when one goes down, the other goes down with it. In other words, they are locked in a scale where they both move in the same direction. And then there's the companion pair relationship......(Tape ended here).

I was just thinking some more about what came on the other side of this tape...that moment when mass strikes mass, when mass connects with mass, and at that point, the gravitational fields between them turn into one gravitational field. In other words, no longer being looked at as two separate masses, but as one single mass, therefore it's crossed the limit line. What happens when mass touches mass. Well, we say that there's a straight line progression; some sort of a linearity that could chart the distance between them. And the distance between them would be a line of some sort or

another -- either an angled line, or a straight line, meaning that it's horizontal, vertical or some angle that eventually would chart the distance down to zero. And when it gets down to zero of course, that would be at zero - zero, and this would allow for acceleration. It could follow some sort of a curve even, but the end point of that curve would be at zero - zero; meaning that there was no longer any acceleration between the two, no longer any speed between the two, no longer any distance between the two. They have in fact become a single entity.

Now, it occurred to me that this is true when you are looking from the perspective of seeing the gravitational field become nil, at the point that the two masses become one. However, if you start looking at the masses at a different fractal level, and you realize that they get closer and closer, but when do they actually touch? Well, that depends on how much mass you have. You are talking mathematically as a single point, well, eventually they arrive at the same point, and that's true. But, in the physical world, you actually have masses that are made of collections of atoms. These collections of atoms get together, and the atoms eventually reach a point where two atoms, one from mass A and one from mass B, come into conjunction that is as close as the distance between two atoms within mass A or two atoms within mass B. At that point, when the distance between the closest atoms from mass A and mass B is equal or less than the distance between two atoms within mass A or within mass B, we can say that the two masses have joined as one. However, they really have never touched, because in fact, in order for them to reach a nil point, where they become a single mass, we cannot be able to chart it spatially across the size of any given mass. Mass A, if it is not a single mathematical point, has distance within it between at least two atoms.

Within a single atom, the distance between the protons or the neutrons within the nucleus, no matter how much we sub-divide it, until we get down to the elemental mathematical point, they never will really touch, which means we end up with another hyperbolic curve, but in this case, the hyperbolic curve is not reaching a limit line of gravitational attraction, but we are reaching a limit line of physical proximity. And suddenly there is no more linearity at that point; dropping through the fractal levels, we see that at the mathematical single point there is a linearity, but anything above that single mathematical essence there is only approaching the limit line. Now, because they are approaching the limit line again, that means that we must be turning into a linearity in terms of the gravitational field. In other words, at some point, gravitation has to cease looking at that fractal level. When we look at the masses as occupying space, as opposed to just being mass, then as soon as they occupy space, that means in that sense, there is a linearity, or binary state to gravitation; where it is either there or it is not between two objects.

That binary state then hypothesizes that in the real world, gravity will cease in the universe as we see it. At some point, gravity will cease to exist. So, one of the predictions of mental relativity is that in a real world in which we see that every mass must occupy space, and cannot exist short of occupying space. Gravity at some point will cease to exist when two masses get within a certain distance of each other, and that will be a curve or linearity of some sort. Because of the nature of two masses getting close together, and if they get mathematically close together to the point that they become a single point, then what happens to the force that drew them together?

It can't dissipate completely. In fact, if the straight line comes to the point of zero - zero, because it's a vector it must continue past zero- zero. Now what happens if you have two masses that become so close that they not only connect and become a single entity, but then pass through each other, right through each other. Not through the open space, we are talking mathematical points now that exist only in theory. We have 2 mathematical points that occupy no space, but have space between them. They get closer and closer through some kind of measure of distance between them, meaning that they have energy, these vectors of energy that are working in opposite directions. They arrive at a point of zero - zero at which they actually become one -- that is the only point at which they can touch is when they become one. Otherwise, it's only gravitational forces that are working. And as soon as they become one, then what happens to the energy, well they have to pass through each other. Now that means the energy will apparently dissipate. The energy will apparently cancel itself out. Inertia is the force we are looking at here. Forget about acceleration for a moment because acceleration will show itself in moving the single point that has created out of the two points coming into conjunction as moving that single point in one direction or another based on the combined vectors of the forces at work. But, what about inertia when two forces come together, one moving from the left to the right, one moving from the right to the left horizontally across a straight line, they arrive at a point where they coincide and occupy the same point, not space. They occupy the same point because they have no space, only mass.

At that point, what happens to those two energy vectors? Does energy just cease to exist? No, this is what they think may be going on in sub-nuclear physics, but what's really happening is that you are creating something where they pass through each other and continue in their different directions. Well, why is then that we don't see this happening in the real universe. When two things merge, they stay merged. Because we are working at a different fractal level here, and we are not talking about two objects actually coming together to become one. This is only what we hypothesize happens when we are dealing with nuclear fusion. When you are dealing with nuclear fusion, we are saying that two entities come together and give off energy and form a new mass. That is the wrong way to be looking at it to get any sense out of it. Because what's really happening is that they are passing through each other. They pass through each other and move past the line of spatial existence. They move past that line and become negative mass. Now, we're not talking anti-matter here. We're talking tendency theory where we say something exists, how firmly does it exist? With how much vigor does it exist?

There are always volatile atmospheres into which things can be created out of sheer probability, out of sheer possibility. Potentiality exists, but has not become manifest in any tangible sense. This is the way that things come into creation, out of no place-- whether it be thought or an object. When something passes that magic point, the magic point is going from not existing to existing. But, that state of existing when you look at it as a binary means that out of nothing comes something. Newton said that "science was the greatest of all endeavors because it may allow us to determine why there is something rather than nothing." Well, the fact is there isn't really something and there isn't really nothing...there's all kinds of potential to become, and things have always partially become, but never nothing actually is -- things are only in the process

of becoming and they never actually aren't either. This sounds a little strange I'm sure, but what you really end up with is the concept of negative mass, not anti-matter, but negative mass. Negative mass is something that has less of a tendency to come into being than zero. In other words, if two masses come together under opposite forces in a theoretical mathematical sense -- two points that represent mass come together, but they contain no space within them, they only have space between them, then when that space between them becomes zero, the forces that push them together, push them past each other into a situation of negative mass.

Now what does this mean? This means that one of them must have been negative mass to begin with, because on this chart that we are looking at, we are not looking at two objects in real space, we are looking at one in negative space, and one in positive space. A negative mass and a positive mass. What you end up with is a sense not of anti-matter, but a sense of negative space and anti-mass, and the compliments then would be dis-energy or disenergy and reverse time. On one side of this limit line, and on one side of the point zero - zero. The single point is the conjunction for four dimensions. It works in four axis, and all four come together and converge at this single point. When you carry each one of these axis past that point into the other half of it's dimension, then taking each dimension and tracing it's linearity backwards, when all of them are in the negative, you end up with anti-mass, negative space, disenergy and reverse time. Now, how can we tell which universe is mass, energy, space and time, and which universe is anti- mass, negative space, disenergy, and reverse time? Well, you can't. Whether you are in one or the other, you can't see the other one, because that point of zero - zero is essentially the "big bang". That's exactly what we end up with in the "big bang".

In other words, looking at the "big bang" as being the collapse of the universe from existence space is essentially half the equation. It appears to be like the top half of a sine wave. Now when we look at something like that, we say wait a minute, there's the top half of the sine wave and then they say here's the "big bang" and then everything stretches out and then it comes screaming back to center and there's the collapse of the universe back to zero. Now, what they look at is then immediately it goes from back to zero and another "big bang" occurs. But, that would be a series of humps on the top of the line. What's really happening is that cycle going back to the other side. And when it goes back to the other side, we end up with everything we have in this universe reaching that point of zero - zero where there's no space, no time, no mass and no energy, but that is only momentarily. It's only when everything cancels out, but it's inertia carries it into the other side, into the negative universe where we have negative space, anti-mass, disenergy and reverse time. At that point, everything will continue to flower in the other direction in an expansion.

If it's passing through and going that way, something from the other side must be collapsing through and coming the other way. If you have the sin, you have the con-sin to put it simply. So that's what gives the appearance of having a hump, hump, hump is we see on one side, first the sin wave half cycle, then the co-sin wave half cycle, then the sin wave half cycle. That's assuming we sit out here in the universe and watch. But, we can't watch because we are going to be passing through. When we try in a theoretical sense to put ourselves into objectivism and look at the universe

as if we could stand in it, but not be affected by it, that's when we see these series of humps. If indeed, we realize that we are subjective viewers, then because of the subjective viewing of it, then that's why we think it's going to be a series of humps. In reality it is a sin wave and a co-sin and all of the others. Remember, in mental relativity, there are two new trigonometric functions, that's why we had to invent "quadranometery" instead of trigonometry. We have the sin, co-sin, secant, co-secant, tangent, co-tangent and dependent and co-dependent. Those two extra functions describe time as it is separated from space, rather than there being a space/time continuum.

So, now we look at our notion of the human mind dealing with change, dealing with moving from one binary state to another. Suddenly we have some tools to deal with that. We have tools to deal with going into negative thought. If we look at the same concepts where we have knowledge equals mass, thought equals energy, ability equals space, and desire equals time, we can see it much more clearly in a subjective sense when we look at ourselves and say we have knowledge of something or we have anti-knowledge. What would anti-knowledge be? What happens when you unlearn something? What happens when you have a certain amount knowledge, and that knowledge diminishes and diminishes until it reaches zero knowledge of something -- Forgetfulness is at work. And then continues on past that to see patterns that could not be perceived when you had knowledge of it. In other words, to unlearn a subject so that you can see something fresh in it. That's exactly what's happening when you're talking about mass and anti-mass. You are talking about the journey into the creation of something that cannot be as long as masses exist. And it's a natural progression for one to destruct itself.

This destruction, this force of destruction, we all see extropy and entropy. And when we are looking at extropy and entropy what we are really looking at is energy and disenergy. What we are ending up with is a force that builds up and a force that builds down. A force that builds up to complexity by stretching things out, by separating them away. And a force that builds down to entropy by pulling them all together towards that single point. Now, as a result of that, when you are looking at knowledge, what is it that takes knowledge of something and disintegrates it down to no knowledge so that it can become a knowledge of something that could not be perceived as long as the original knowledge had existed, (the anti-knowledge). Well, how does that anti-knowledge come into being because the process of disenergy decays the complexity of knowledge. It is entropy of knowledge. It pulls it down, down and down until it gets to a single point and then that exact same force of disenergy passes the limit line and becomes energy to build it up into this new anti-knowledge. So, in effect, what we end up with is energy is at work until you get to the point of zero - zero - zero and then disenergy is existing with anti-knowledge. But, remember if you take anti-knowledge and look at it in terms of disenergy, it just looks like energy and knowledge from the other side. But, if you look at it objectively, stand outside that and say what's happening as it passes through that limit line, then you can see the process of disenergy working to un-build knowledge. And it crosses the line and it becomes energy coming out the other side, that is thought which is building up new knowledge. In other words, thought and anti-thought. Thought appears to build up knowledge, anti-thought appears to tear it down. When in reality, the real anti-thought from an

objective stand point is once you've gotten knowledge down to zero and thought continues and builds up another knowledge that could not have existed until the first knowledge was eliminated because it blocked a point of view -- it created a blind spot. It created a given, and until that given was removed, something in contradiction to that given could not be accepted.

Therefore, from an objective standpoint, thought can serve to build up knowledge, but it can also serve to build it down, and when thought has built knowledge down to the point that knowledge is zero, it becomes anti-thought or dis-thought and anti-knowledge. Now, again, if we are comparing space and ability, what is happening when we end up with negative space? Well, negative space is the equivalent of negative ability. In other words, if you have a situation in which ability is degrading, until it reaches zero - if you have no ability in a situation, what happens if you develop an ability to screw it up? Well, if you develop an ability to screw it up, that's even worse than having no ability at all. Not only are you passive, or unable to accomplish something, but you cannot help but dis-accomplish it. You have a negative impact on your purposes by merely acting. The more you act, the more it becomes negative.

Chris once said to me, "sometimes you have to push something to make it come toward you." This begins to jump around a lot of different fractal levels, a lot of different frictal levels. It begins to talk about the relationships between mass, energy, time and space. Pushing something to make it come towards you. Well, that's what happens when negative ability is at play. Negative ability is at play the more you push. The faster you go, the behinder you get. There was a book called "On Stranger Tides" that I once read, a pirate story about magic and pirates. And the magic was that when they got to the fountain of youth, they could see it, but the more they walked towards it, the farther away it got. The faster they moved towards it, the more quickly it receded. In fact, they had to take this surreptitious route where they moved away from it in a particular direction in order to arrive at it. This concept kind of boggles the mind. It deals very nicely however with warped space, black holes and quasars. What you end up with is sometimes your abilities not only degrade to the point that they become zero, but that they increase in a negative sense, so that everything you do works against your purposes -- that's negative ability. However, if it's coupled with anti-knowledge and dis-thought, what you end up with is a positive ability, because now you are working to a new purpose of anti-knowledge. Dis-thought is there to help build anti-knowledge in a pattern of increasing negative ability.

Now, the final point is when you come to desire and reverse desire. You hear about attraction and repulsion. How can they both exist? You would think that if desire is the effective equivalent of time in the internal universe, then we would only have forward moving desire. In other words positive desire. If we only had forward moving desire where we only said I want this, I want this, I want this. I'm attracted to this. That would be something that was farther and farther in the future, more and more of a greater pull. You could end up with the equivalence of the time dilation effect, where things would go from apparently freezing at a zero point in which you have no desire at all. Or they were going so fast that you couldn't see them at the opposite side of the scale, which would be maximum desire. But, remember in external relativity (Einstein's), you have the speed of light which appears to be a constant, because we are looking subjectively at an objective universe. And when we are looking inside ourselves, we are looking objectively at a subjective universe. And because of that, instead of being the time that can't be exceeded, the speed of light... it's the space that can't be exceeded which is the size of mind. In other words, desire - the size of your desirability is going to be limited, it's going to appear constant. In other words, you have a certain amount of desire, and that desire will always be constant, but it's mitigated by anti-desire, reverse desire. Reverse desire is repulsion. You are repelled from something. When you are repelled from something, here's the reason that this serves as a good way for looking at the real universe, the external universe....we're talking about being able to see within ourselves, both sides of the scale; past the point, zero-zero / zero-zero; which is where all four dimensions come together.

Inside ourselves, we can see us reach the point of negative knowledge, and then have anti-knowledge pop out the other side; clearly remembering that we used to see it one way, hold a certain given, a certain point of view, a certain prejudice, a certain bias, and now we don't. We clearly no longer hold it and yet at the same time, we've established a new point of view that we can see that now we hold. No matter how open-minded you are, you've got to hold something, or you have no mind at all. We can also see ourselves having a thought process that is tearing down knowledge and building up new knowledge once the old knowledge is torn down to zero. We can see our abilities getting to the point that when we try to deal with something we're only screwing it up, and the harder we try, the more of a screw up we create. We can also see that sometimes we are attracted to things, and sometimes we are repelled to them. When you begin to look at that level, you're starting to look at things like magnetism, gravity, electrical charges. In other words, the weak forces of the universe. When you look at the weak forces and the strong forces and you look at gravity and you start realizing that there are going to be four kinds of forces at work, you are talking unified field theory here.

Unfortunately, the exact math of it all eludes me, because I'm not a mathematician. I have a sense of pattern, and I have a sense of changing patterns and how they work. So, somebody more qualified in math than I is going to have to work out the specific math. But, clearly an analogy can be drawn between looking at the external universe, objectively, instead of subjectively, and looking at the internal universe objectively. So, we have the subjective view of the objective universe which is how Einstein looked at things, and we have the objective view of the subjective universe, which is how mental relativity looks at things inside. Now, we can turn them around and say, let's take the subjective view of the subjective universe, apply Einstein's rules to mental relativity, and see how we blend different dimensions within ourselves. Which dimensions are blended, just like space and time are blended externally? And we can also turn around and take mental relativity and say let's separate things and take an objective view of objectivity, of the objective universe outside ourselves and split all the dimensions.

Now, when we take Einstein's and we look inside ourselves, we say, O.K., in Einstein's universe, all of us, the entire species looks at space and time as being blended together. They become one space / time continuum. Inside, we end up with it now being the same way for all people. We look at men and we look at women, and we look at the spatial brain operating system and the temporal brain operating system.

What we end up with is inside we are blending different yardsticks. In other words, men are going to blend ability and desire, and women are going to blend knowledge and ability. Now, when they blend knowledge and ability together, knowledge and ability is essentially one thing. The more you know, the more you are able. To men those separate entities. But, they (men) blend ability and desire. If there's no desire, there's no ability, because they can't motivate themselves. If there's no ability, there's no desire, because why want something you can't do. They've locked those together.

So, what have we created now, between the external universe and the internal universe? We've created a triangle; a triangle which says here is everybody looking at the universe as a space/time continuum -- we all share that view, that's the intrinsic one to us. Remember, we can learn other ways of looking at it, but that's the intrinsic one, the one that operates with our own brain operating systems. That's the commonalty between male and female minds as we see space and time blended together. However, when we look at our own inner minds, we can clearly see that there are two separate species-- the male mind or space operating system, or the female mind -- temporal brain operating system. And as a result of these two minds, we've created a triangle now. But, as we know in mental relativity, everything is in a quad. And what's the missing piece? The missing piece is when we start applying mental relativity of the objective view of subjectivity, and use the objective view of objectivity in Einstein's universe. And the moment we do that, is when we have to then split space and time; (on the other side of this tape) looking at wave length and frequency to see what's really going on, realizing there's the sin and the co-sin, realizing that there is anti-mass, and negative space and disenergy and reverse time and realizing that those things do not exist independently,

(Tape ends here).