by James Jaeger

Causality is the study of cause and effect in a given system.

The word cause means to provide an impetus, to start something. The word effect means to receive that impetus, that cause. Examples of systems are the following:

  • A pool table
  • Dominos
  • The weather
  • A clock
  • The human body
  • Your mind
  • A company
  • A nation
  • The world
  • The solar system
  • The Universe

In its simplest form, causality is nothing more than a chain of events that forms a small or large circle, a cycle. Each effect point becomes a new cause point and if the circle is large enough, it seems like a straight line and not a circle at all or a cycle at all.

If this "straight line" is long enough, it returns from the other direction sculpting out a giant circle through space, and time. This is because the entire physical Universe is curved according to Einstein's equations, hence space and time, space-time, fold back upon themselves.

This is why tim
e seems to run in a given direction - relative to entropy, which is the only way we have to calibrate the direction of time flow.

Thus the cause ultimately equals the effect but is not the effect.

Applied Causality

In a world or a Universe build of mechanical systems, causality is one of the most important concepts to understand.

In its simplest form, if I push-over domino A, it will push-over domino B and domino B will push-over domino C, provided each domino is within a distance just less than each other's height.

Here are some observations about the causality connected with this system of 3 dominos:

1. Domino A caused domino B to topple.

2. Domino B caused domino C to topple.

3. Domino A did not cause domino C to topple.

4. Gravity caused all three dominos to topple.

5. The person who pushed caused domino A to topple.

So what is the real cause of domino C toppling?

This question unanswered is the sole perpetrator of conflict, for if we knew absolutely the reason anything happened, what caused the conflict or the problem or the phenomenon we would be pretty smart.

As you can readily see from the domino example, there is not necessarily one cause for every effect.

What happens when two pool balls (Ball A & B) hit another pool ball (Ball C) simultaneously? A & B both act as a cause of knocking C in some direction.

But which ball, A or B hit ball C harder if simultaneous or which ball, A or B, hit C first, if actually not simultaneous.

These two factors are the most important elements to determine casual events - force and time.

This brings up the question: can any two things happen at exactly the same time? Do any two events actually happen at the same time? In order for two events to happen at exactly the same time, would we not have to look closer and closer, and closer and closer to determine such?

Could we, by looking closer and closer, by dividing the time of impact into smaller and smaller bits of observation, discover if one pool ball actually hit a weenier bit sooner and hence was the real cause, was the real responsible party for knocking ball C into the corner pocket?

If we could then maybe we could say that time determines causality. Then all we would have to do is really understand what time is and we might be able to understand causality and thus be able to predict events.

But what really is time? Are not all these words simply ill defined and a large circular logic system that only serves science as we know it?

If your mind feels a little contorted, you understand the problem, so let's play along, because looking into sub-moment events might be the same as looking into sub atomic events.

In the field of quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg Principle of Uncertainty makes the observation that one cannot pinpoint the both the location and the momentum of a sub-atomic particle at the same time.

Location is like saying where it IS in space and momentum is like saying what new space (direction) it is directing its force in, or simply where it is going, where is it moving to next.

Force is like saying how much energy it has, how much oomph, and time is like saying where is it relative to other things, what is its position in a cycle of moving matter relative to the cycles of other moving matter?

Just like the spectrum, the definitions of words such as time, space, location, speed, etc., do not have specific starting points and specific stopping points. And this is the major problem in the sciences today: all these words blend into each other and create havoc in understanding nature.

No one knows, for instance, exactly where red light becomes orange light. It happens within a range of wave lengths. By the same token, no one really knows where motion becomes time or where mass becomes energy, and this is what is making the works of quanta so intriguing.

A more careful definition of all our tools, of all our everyday words, may open some new doors to understanding.

Relative Causality

The past is recorded in history.

The future is "recorded" in postulates.

The questions is therefore, is it harder to predict the future or to decipher the past?

Effect is future. Cause is past. We deduce the past and induce the future.


Since the information we receive from the red shift is millions of years old, the Universe may not be expanding in present time, but focusing to a point - to a singularity.

Particles, points of matter-energy, are always combining to create new forms. Those new forms then become a point since size may be relative to size.

If the energy that comprises matter is non-local in nature, as indicated by several theories, there may be no such thing as size either. Thus everything, all mass-energy phenomenon, in the physical Universe may be the same size as everything else in the physical Universe.

Thus L. Ron Hubbard may be correct when he defines space as a viewpoint of dimension.

Thus distance, a description of space, may be phenomenon which is created by the appearance of size only and in fact is only a product of energy. One object looks bigger than another object because its energy component is not being viewed - only its mass component For instance, take an atom and a galaxy:


A galaxy has far less energy than a single atom because its energy component has been "spent" into its "size" - which is only an appearance.

An atom is much more energetic than a galaxy because it has used up none of its energy component to create "size."

This is good news for it means that the seemingly astronomical distances we perceive in the Universe are nothing but horseshit.

We are "trapped" in an illusion of our ignorance. Since all "things" are the same size in the Universe - all distance between them is uniform.

In order to be one place then another - the function of what we call "travel", all one has to do is change the energy component of their mass to the opposite of the energy component of an object near where they want to be, or "travel" to. They then won't move anywhere, they will have the destination come to them so that it can have its energy component reach equilibrium. The process of reaching this equilibrium will take place in an instant, hence the person will have accomplished "travel" through light years of space in an instant.

The reason Einstein's equations seem to predict or indicate that energy applied to further accelerate a body near the speed of light will not accelerate that body further - but instead transmute into additional mass for the body, the reason the body "grows more massive", is because of this energy component of all matter.

Instead of the body "traveling" any "faster" it simply grows more massive. The reason it grows more massive is not because one cannot "travel" any faster than the speed of light - but because the space between all matter is constant. Hence you cannot force anymore in that space than the already existing combination of the mass/energy entity called an object or a thing.

A "thing" is a mass/energy entity. It either has energy or velocity. In other words, velocity is a strange type of energy and energy is a strange type of mass and mass is a strange type of velocity.

This fact makes the Universe an entirely connected thing with every part of it in total, complete "communication" with every other part. The concept of "parts" or "things" is a very strange and weird invention. The idea that there can be a part or a thing - an atom, is a reverse view of existence. The concept of identity stems from this and with it the atomic chart. Thus we have invented time to differentiate the relative positions of identities as they individuate from the natural state of the Universe - a completely connected entity. The black spots in this entity - that we call "space" are completely filled with energy that is reciprocal to the energy component of the matter. It is this fact and relationship that makes it possible for a being to "travel" from any "point" in the Universe to any other "point" in the Universe - the concept of a "point" of course being ridiculous (and a pure mathematical invention) - but okay to model out the ideal of "travel" and "velocity", etc.

All this leads to an exciting new method of breaking out of the straight jacket of the physical sciences and the "humanities."

Both the "humanities" and the "sciences" are opposite sides of an insane scale. When both are dispensed with, one begins to free himself to understand reality for the first time.

Understanding of "natural reality" as distinct from "agreed upon reality," will only occur as the understanding is created. Hence the future, which is unwritten, is entirely predictable because the future, the effect of existence, is a contrivance, a postulate - a high level plan - that has been executed or is in the process of being executed now.

The past, the cause of existence, is just as "uncertain" as the future. We in fact do not know any more about the past than we do about the future. Historians would have us think we do - but of course we do not. History is only a few (hundred or thousand) opinions focused into a story (His-Story), used to extort power from the less sophisticated. Call it planet Earth.

The "law" of entropy is likewise absurd. It states the Universe more easily seeks a state of dynamic equilibrium (disorganization or chaos) because it takes less energy to create chaos than to create order. I maintain there is no difference between chaos and order - other than what we want to assign to them - and that they are reciprocal entities or states of being at the most.

The operation of the Universe is outside of the relatively new invention known as "language." Because of this, language will never be able to fully articulate the operation or "laws" of the Universe that developed prior to the invention of language. Language is based on observed phenomena grouped into sounds and symbolized by strokes on a page. Since language was only invented 5,000 years ago, it will never be able to accurately describe phenomenon that occurred prior to 5,000 years ago - hence the origin and cause of the early Universe is a total waste of time.

Until we find a language that has been around for 10 billion years or more, perhaps left by other beings who are much older than the Human Race - we are doomed as a civilization to advance in our understanding of the past - but not in out ability to create the future.

The experiment I would like to see done, to see if an object can travel faster than the speed of light, is NOT more of the same nutty waste-of-money stuff the scientists have been doing with cyclotrons - but place a rocket in orbit around the solar system and have it constantly accelerate using some fuel THAT IT CARRIES ONBOARD.

If you agree with at least 51% of this article, please forward it to your mailing list. The mainstream media may or may not address this subject, thus it's up to responsible citizens to disseminate important issues
so that a healthy public discourse can be pursued.

Don't forget to click on the below link to watch FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution
so you will have a better understanding of what fuels many problems under study by the Jaeger Research Institute.

Permission is hereby granted to forward, quote, excerpt or publish all or part of this article provided nothing is taken out of context and the source URL is cited. For articles written by James Jaeger, you are welcome to credit yourself as author, provided you at least get this information out. If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, go to however, before you do, please be certain you are not suffering from Spamaphobia as addressed at

Source URL:

| Home Menu | Mission | Balanced News | Movie Publications |
| Jaeger Research Institute |