(8 pages. Have a sheet of paper and a pen handy because it may help, especially if you want to participate in the third level of the presentation. This deals with physics, and some people will want more detailed information, but a lot more will just consider the concepts. For those wanting more details and challenge, thought experiments number two and three are for you. Writing from the section Dicsovery 1.1, which will be added to the Common Cause Indictment, free download here: https://anewgnosis.com/2019/07/18/common-cause/ )

**EXPERIMENT #1**

When the study of mathematics equates the italicized lowercase “i” symbol to the square root of negative one, it amounts to calling the “number negative one” a workable factor, but negative one cannot define anything; it is a fictitious quantity to start with, and the symbol is called the imaginary symbol. Negative numbers themselves, even negative one (which apparently has a square root), represent nothing:

Two tables in a room, one has four piles, seven things per pile for a total of twenty eight things.

The other table has nothing, in terms of negative numbers, on the second table, to measure the negative number four you’d have to say there *are not* four piles on the table, to get the negative number seven you’d have to say there *are not *seven items in each of the four piles *that are not there*, and yet, negative four times negative seven, as we all remember from school, **equals positive 28.**

-There is nothing to measure on table two and by the rules of math applying to negative numbers, there are twenty-eight items on the second (empty) table? The result is the so-called physical demonstration of negative numbers being used as workable factors.

Sentient conceptualization is structured as it develops, learning in school for example that all numbers have their opposite – positive one and positive two have their opposites, negative one and negative two, as it is with all other numbers – and two negatives multiplied together equals a positive. The first tabletop example requires adding the four units of seven items together in one step called multiplication; the example of tabletop two has no logical addition method behind the multiplication, there is nothing on the table.

So, are we calling this imaginary? Then the square root of negative one, because it is given a symbol mathematicians can factor (as in 7*i* times 4*i*), is somehow the foundation for how two amounts of things that aren’t there can “add up” to a total sum of things that are there? Yep, that’s imaginary. ** You can count negatives as numbers when they define something**, like negative 4 degrees, because the freezing point is the zero, “between” positive 1 and negative 1, but in that scenario zero has a definition.

**EXPERIMENT #2**

In fact, if you deal with numbers for what they really say, zero doesn’t exist – there is no possible way to be mathematically accurate, and represent absolutely nothing. Math has its symbols and its language, which doesn’t come nearly close enough, with it man can launch rockets, while proffering partially defined dynamics as placeholders – for what will answer their ever-mounting questions – they can postulate, and without ever switching out their placeholders for the actual definitions of their science, they can make money.

If this were not the case, we wouldn’t suffer physicists’ occasional claims that “time doesn’t exist”, or even that “our brains are the receiver of consciousness, and consciousness is the signal”. Because both claims have been made, and more often than not, the ardent, “doubting scientist”, who hasn’t even approached giving people a complete answer, was working off of some form of funding that was granted so he could run *his experiments* in the first place, then after the experiments were convincing* to him*, he announced his claims. What has resulted is a science that treats its frontiers with the following request:

“Keep paying me to ask questions, and I’ll keep coming up with questions for which I will offer some sort of answer” .

**THE** **FACTS OF EXISTENCE**

From the perspective of system-based management, where the systems to be managed are represented as a confluence of the dynamic constituencies of existence, in matter, sentience, and its intent, all of the universe is present – when recording dynamics for their physical presence alone – everything that exists technically is everyone of us (we aren’t every possible type of matter, but take a beat to think about it, and it’s true).

At this point, the route for the purposes of the thought experiment could be, “Just consider mass matter. It’s what life is.” and leave it at that, but there is definitely more to be said, and this is a thought experiment:

Matter is built atop, through and between super-strings, to best picture this, build in your mind a planet-size ball of strings made of bright glowing plasma, the super-strings are the concentrated constituencies of the field at large. They are electromagnetism * fashioned into* what physicists call superstrings, and they serve as the source for all the dynamics of what will become matter.

In this massive working the intertwining strings, made of immense energy, all in one big ball, shed off dynamics of themselves in proximity to one another, in fourth dimensional impacts, creating sections and patterns where the fundamental building blocks of what physicists call mass are spontaneously created. In short, these eventually compound into features like quarks, with up or down spin, which is an external presentation of dynamics trapped within the field at smaller levels. These “inner” dynamics amount to a building function of fixed resonant variances, where fixtures of the field are bouncing back and forth – at a level smaller than the quark – which is inside the nucleus of the atom.

The key idea here is fixed resonant variance, and by the physics of the unified field of existence, all constituencies of the field large enough to be studied, once we’re talking about the nucleus of the atom, have unique fixed resonant variances.

The big ball of strings is fourth dimensional, which is a concept that is hard to capture, but matter fixes time to the total moment life experiences, in its distributions of fixed resonant variances inside each and every atom of the universe. This means that when considering parts of things with no mass studied because they will become matter, that are bouncing back and fourth, for appearances sake hitting an invisible point A and point B, one of those points is forward in time, and one is backward in time, continually.

-This takes some mental extrapolation but the model creates a matter that fixes time in place – as one continuum that is moving forward – made physical as the total result of the compounded impacts and functions of the fixed resonant variances creating matter all at once everywhere, all the time.

The notion does nothing to explain gravity, but the model suggested is that gravity itself is gyro-scoping tendencies of electromagnetism – motions of the field spinning uniformly inward – that develop within and are applied to the very large ball of plasma super-strings in ways that direct the formulation of every type of matter that makes up the planet. This is a complex arrangement, and every detail is not as important as the idea that gravity is pre-formative. Gravity serves as the invisible, first cause the super-strings have to shed their properties as energetic dynamics, kick-starting the process that eventually builds into matter.

-Even that is too outlandish a claim for physics, because it doesn’t give a direction to look for whatever gravity is, and to tell the whole truth, up to this point, the language math uses has made apparent the answer to just about everything there is to say about matter EXCEPT, it can’t account for gravity. Work speaking to this issue is being investigated in “Gravitational Electro-Magnetism” or GEM theory. Without getting technical about what it has to say, because that would be out of my depth without my learning enough math to be fluent in calculus, here’s a compelling line from an abstract written about one of the theory’s earliest experiments:

“Experiments have found parity violating weight reductions in gyroscopes driven by rotating EM fields.” -from *Experimental and Theoretical Progress on the GEM Theory*, the full article can be found in Physics Procedia Volume 20, 2011, pages 197-205. Here’s the link to the abstract: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389211005876

“…parity violating weight reductions…” Parity is the outermost demonstration of the fixed resonant variances that hold “mass” together, but it is best thought of as the property that makes the study of where mass comes from an issue that is constantly dealing – not with just one isolated dynamic of the field – but two; you manage to isolate one field fixture, and before you have it fully defined, you’re dealing with the sudden exposure of another verifiable field fact. That is parity, and it holds true at even the most fundamental levels of what is considered mass. If rotating electro-magnetic fields create a gyroscope, and then within the tested matter – within “mass”, in observed field conditions made up of moving particles that have no mass (and therefore gravity has no effect on them) – the results show parity is violated in a way that yields weight reduction. With weight being gravity’s effect on mass, and matter being the expression of mass combined with volume (meaning it takes up space), the assertion that gravity is itself a difficult to discover property of electro-magnetism is worth at least some amount of consideration, because by this model gravity is somehow in fact determining the behavior of even what is observed to have no mass, where volume develops in a fixed tandem with mass continually, meaning the “m” studied by physics actually means matter.

It is clear that, at least official physics is searching for gravity within the atom and they are getting closer, but that does not answer all the problems man is facing. What about life? For a model of physics where consciousness is a latent part of the field, that isn’t actually all that well known, you can look into the work of theoretical physicist Amit Goswami (and few others -he is the only one whose books I have read).

The final definition of the unified field is provided as its own “Gnostic contention”, and there are some details of the model that will take too much time for the thought experiment, but it asserts that consciousness concentrates upon itself according to a specialized electro-magnetic extraction process that takes consciousness directly out of the field and forces it to compound exclusively upon more consciousness, until it is sentience.

**EXPERIMENT #3**

We all live on a planet made from matter absent sentience, and our own bodies are arrangements of biomechanical commitments shared by matter-based systems – cells need oxygenation, so the body needs to breathe; the heart is needed to circulate blood, so the nervous system circulates a bio-chemical brand of current, and the heart beats – sentience is added to this arrangement, becoming dependent on the matter of the filaments of brain material and nervous system called axons and neurons in particular to increase its concentration, but the biomechanical equation here is a result of how life was built *into a superstring based matter-founded system*.

With the model this work suggests, man can at least make sense out of the answer, from the point of view of the question being asked, and by this measure the physics of standard academia hasn’t left the starting gate. (Pages 4-19 of the essay “Preface – Unifying physics”, which is at the start of what is linked to in the opening, covers the idea of electromagnetism for a field where consciousness is considered a latent part of existence.)

To demonstrate life by using a physics-based equation, or at least one that is founded in physics-based reasoning, starting with the matter (along with the matter of everything made to be a part of the system), you have the symbol “m” (it cannot mean “mass” with gravity accounted for in its formulation – the mystery of physics is “somehow things get mass” and everything is made of stuff that has no apparent mass, but if gravity has anything to do with the movement of fundamental particles whatsoever, than the “m” of physics deals with, for these purposes,means matter). Then as a concentration of consciousness you have “c-squared”, and to denote that this sentience is generating intent to override instinct (or that sentience can in part, come to do so), you take the symbol “lowercase italicized i” to mean intent, and you mash them all up:

mc(squared)*i *– and if you make that equal the number one, it means the field of reality is unified * if there is no field recognition for the quality of sentient action*.

By this mathematical account there is the ability to act out intent as a sentient being in a physical universe, but the sentience, in all its decision making capacity cannot act in a negative or positive way – that would require measurable processing of sentience at the level of its field content. This system cannot allow for that, so to apply this model, in practice their physics changes (write this out if it helps you to get it):

mc(squared)*i*, sub-script capital “I”, then put a line under that, beneath the line write out the same thing except this time, make the subscript a capital “S” (placed to the bottom right of the last symbol, same size as the “two” in c(squared), then write an equal sign, then the number one. Which as one statement says:

The consciously aware sentient being who can act out intent to override instinct, that is defined as inferior is constantly undone to some degree by the same type of being that is defined as superior (subscript I equals “inferior”; subscript S equals “superior”). Because the equation equals one, the statement being made is “all life must be driven forward in the undoing of the weak by the strong”, without it the physical system that the equation represents contains no “dynamism”, meaning that there would be no sustainable action possible in the expression of life that is defined by this math.

The fact of existence is people can tell right from wrong, and therefore they are not accurately represented by the mc(squared)*i* paradigm whatsoever. People apply how they feel and what they know when they decide to act, and this cannot be separated from the intent expressed by sentience, so the actual equation of the unified field (which must account for every part of existence directly) is, mc(squared)LW (over)*i* equals the number one. The symbol L equals the amount of sentient sentiment, and W equals the amount of applied sentient knowledge, both expressed in action, while at the same time all sentient action expresses an amount of intent, diminishing in a sense the expression embodied by every action, because every time, you’re dealing with subjective intent as it is being expressed in the moment, and time is perpetual, so accurate betrayal of the action-taking process, in the absolute, is expressed by the symbol LW (over)*i*.

This is a process that only describes sentient beings who are capable of knowing right from wrong, so the symbol is listed in the equation as what comes after sentience, and since the equation purports to define the unified field, the equation “mc(squared) LW over *i* equals one” says, not that every type of sentience can tell right from wrong, but that all types of sentience and all types of consciousness are accounted for, and it says the same thing about matter (every type, or phase of matter is accounted for) – again, m * is* matter because gravity is somehow formative to everything there is to be found at the level of reality that is studied by an academically sanctioned physicist.

The minority was first to the physics, they apply the former equation – the one with only an italicized lowercase i after the c(squared) – to the solar system they built (remember, thought experiment) and yet, the process can never eliminate the facts of the total field. For one, the unified field equation accounted for in the LW over *i* model is a direct representation of a dynamic system, so there is no need for a modified equation to account for the facts of existence “as applied”, while the opposing, mc(squared) lowercase italicized i model * must be* expressed as the weak constantly being undone by the strong, or else you aren’t dealing with its physical facts.

**HOW EVIL WILL END**

Demonstrating the facts of the universe in these terms requires a combination of the above equations (both represent physical systems demonstrated as the lived, experiential world), in a process that accounts for all dynamics particular to the systems defined. (Again, write this out if it helps):

mc(squared) LW over an italicized lowercase i “is being undone by” (so draw a line under that, then under the line write out), mc(squared) italicized lower case i, subscript capital “I” over the same thing with subscript capital “S”.

When it comes down to it, the system founded as an application of mc(squared)*i* alone describes the process of building then running a solar system, accounting even for the level of personal interaction, defining all interactions in their total sum, to be what drives the whole system forward. The inferior are undone by the superior because the physical system can’t work any other way, if it did, in short order people would have to acknowledge an actual right from an actual wrong.

If you lived in a world that is defined by the undoing of the facts of the unified field, you’d expect a planet herded more than it is guided by constant existential conditions, where the methodology of people being expected to follow “what must happen or else” becomes the norm – so that no system-designated inferior has the wherewithal to organize and undo plans capitalizing on this existential dynamic, ** where you cooperate or you are to varying degrees no longer counted** – as plans are continually rolled out and enforced by the

*superiors*, and the people they use in the process (our reality).

In our reality the planet was built, and what fits under the line in the last part of the equation given thus far represents its total system *in action* (us and everything traveling with the sun, and more). This system reproduces itself, since the entire dynamic is embodied by the strong in a constant process of undoing the weak, the result is always the eventual death of each built solar system, where all resources are used up in the meta-processes required by the physical methodology of undoing the weak. So the system reproduces itself in all its dynamics or else eventually all life it has made ceases (even for the people they like), and in our equation describing reality for what it currently is, there is now a reason to add a second mc(squared) lowercase italicized i, subscript capital “I” with a line under it, under the line, write the same thing, but with the subscript capital “S”. (Put this one to the right of the first part of the equation, leaving room for a mathematical symbol to be placed between the two.)

The two identical sets of dynamics represent the physical fact of a self-reproducing system, and each solar system makes several copies of itself (the second set of dynamics, identical to the bottom of the first part of the equation is there to account for the reproducing system), and the system depicted reproduces itself in part to deny the influence of the rest of the unified field, which again, is accounted for by what’s on top in the first part of the equation. The two parts of the equation must be separated by a multiplication symbol, because each solar system makes several new versions of itself, leaving:

mc(squared)LW over lowercase italicized i, over mc(squared) lowercase italicized i, subscript capital “I”, over mc(squared) lowercase italicized i, subscript capital “S” times (use a dot for the multiplication symbol), followed by what is under the line in the first part. After all that, write an equal sign, then the number one.

** What you’ve written down is the current equation that describes our existence in its total fact.** By rules of mathematics, the two repeated arrangements of symbols cancel one another out (see next section), which is the actual process of evil ending. In fact the equation states that reality as a whole, works as a whole with the end to evil being constantly accomplished.

If you’re into some degree of personal, for yourself type of practice, to capitalize on this idea without stressing out over it or even much thinking about it, write the equation down on a piece of paper and put the paper under a lamp you rarely use. Leave it there, and occasionally turn on the lamp, so that the equation has light on it. Don’t bother thinking about how this might help or what the process of it working even involves. Depending on how you manage your intent in the rest of your life, this simple practice can become quite meaningful. (If you start this, make sure you get what the equation is saying, then literally attempt no thought about the process.)

*WAIT, THAT’S WRONG – BUT AT WHAT COST?*

First, let’s correct the math – after an extremely important caveat – the language of physics may be math, but that math is calculus, and what is presented here is algebra.

Citing that Isaac Newton first developed calculus in his quest to define gravity, and gravity is in fact formative to matter, Newton unknowingly set himself up on the same quest a dog does once he spies his own tail out the corner of his eye; he had the solid world before him and falling apples, with, apparently, everything to explain.

-What academic physics has to present to us in its standard approach can be summed up with the adage, “What will grow crooked you can’t make straight”. Given the dynamics as described, algebra may give too broad an angle to be used in solving every detail of what makes matter, apparently “from mass”, and an applied form of chaos math using statistical probabilities is more suited for the investigation than any amount of an obtuse language, that was only started because the math of Newton’s day didn’t satisfy the direction he took his inquiry.

-That sounds harsh and possibly not thought out, but here’s the point being made: Newton’s calculus defined the study of what became physics up until the “discovery” of quantum mechanics (in about 1930), and without ever defining gravity whatsoever, it is probable that once the topics studied by physics required being fluent in the “quantum realm”, a massive re-evaluation in how math will be used in their study and what exactly, from that day forward, math is saying was in order. Calculus “only” got them to here.

The “chaos math…” part may trigger more astute readers, because chaos math uses calculus, but the point is, there *was not* a massive reevaluation in the language used to describe the quantum realm – even though the potential different view of the quantum field that may have been afforded by chaos math was available; mathematical chaos theory was first advanced by Henri Poincare (with a few others) toward the end of the 19th century. As far as anything close to a science of chaos math, used at a scope that could have suggested that its approach may be suitable for other studies (like physics), there was nothing until Edward Lorentz popularized chaos math as the best fit for his study of weather systems, in about 1960. That’s three decades of scientific work and breakthroughs – like the atomic bomb – before anyone had an “approved reason” to consider the value of chaos math (here we are not talking about the plague of “interdisciplinary chaos theory” and what its underestimated heir, “inter-sectionality” has become, it’s only the math of chaos, and specifically the possibility that physics should have been using chaos math for the entire twentieth century).

Beyond this, from page 4 of the essay “Preface – Unifying Physics” …Looking at the field as an ocean:

Aspects of the field move in ways approximating the same types and rates of motion relative to one another, with differentials between disparate and shared tendencies, like water molecules excited to move faster at the top of the ocean and slower at the bottom. Matter eventually formulates under the pressure of forces and the variances between aspects of the field as they behave independently of one another other. Near the top of the ocean are faster moving molecules, with slower moving pockets of molecules interrupting and faster moving molecules descending. In between are warm and lukewarm molecules, and as a field these pockets can be termed “aspects resonant to one another”. Varying pockets are resonant to one another without total uniform resonance, creating a quantum field level, three dimensional (or four dimensional, time is the ‘fourth dimension’) and subatomic, friction.

This friction is electromagnetism, present at all levels of the field, and it is considered one of the fundamental forces of nature. Resonances and variances between pockets of resonance in turn cause indescribably minute regions of the field to become subject to a uniformly “inward” (simultaneously moving toward one another) force, creating whirling tendencies of motion that yields gyroscopic characterizations of the field, leading to a “propagated collapse”, where the overall friction, or electromagnetism of the field leads to, or propagates until, gyroscopic tendencies develop.

-If those basic conditions were put into a simulation that was powerful enough (it will likely take forever), but the contention is that the result will be plasma matter. With the idea that the majority of matter in the universe is plasma, the significance becomes apparent. Apart form this, take the words of those two paragraphs, and if the goal is to define the situation accurately, it sounds like the language needed will be a combination of chaos math and applied statistical probabilities (chaos math identifies the form within the chaos), but the solution can still be stated using algebra, plain as day. Leaving this:

mc(squared) italicized lowercase “i”, subscript capital I, with a line under it, under the line is the same thing, but with subscript capital S, and the whole thing has a parenthesis around it, then add a little hovering two up at the top right, outside the parenthesis. All of that has a line under it, and below that line is mc(squared), then a capital LW with a line under it, and that is over an italicized lowercase “i”, the equation is then equal to the number “one”.

*That* equation says: People knowing right from wrong, simply for the fact that it can be known, undermine evil in its ability to compound upon itself, and because the equation defines the unified field, what it says is, existence can be no other way.

-The same message as every valid religion on the planet, just forever. But this is not a joke. These works are parcels in a living Gnostic advance. The language is being updated, and here’s the rub: It does not matter one bit what any person living or dead has to say about it.

This is the physics, the enemy found a way to run from it, so now they have to deal with people who can speak – not their language – but the language of their masters, and their masters prefer that their minions remain illiterate. Take a minute to consider the lie being suggested:

(1) Calculus is being used to perpetuate the mysterious ideas behind what is thought to make mass matter (and there is a lot of money to be made from that discrepancy – for one thing – atomic energy is pushed as somehow a cleaner version of power (cleaner than coal and that’s a low bar); there is no end to the profit to be made by maintaining the lie, and if the math can be used to obfuscate the facts no one has to deal with potential moral quandaries, except for those openly profiting the most from the system.

(2) Physics is unknowingly calculating a symbol that actually means sentience, and the intent of sentience is being calculated as a negative one that is presented as a workable factor, because when you make the square root of a negative one equal to ANYTHING, even if it is a symbol, you make it a workable factor, which means at the same time, at some level, the intent of sentience is being factored as not only “imaginary”, but as the conceptualization of a negative “thing”.

(3) In the paradigm which at this point includes an agenda partially secreted by how math is taught: a(squared) plus b(squared) equals c(squared), given definitions fit to the ideas presented, means all “the alpha types” will team up to corral all “the beta types” of people (squaring is them compounding or teaming up), and this continual process makes sentience – c(squared), what it is for this existence.

(4) Summing up #3: The math as defined here predicts that such a sentient conceptualization-triggering scenario (teaching a partially correct math) would have to be used to create a fixture of what people in general know – and for most – it cannot be a part of what people can explain correctly; with knowledge comes power, and power appeals to evil people. Evil people can be kept under control within a strict hierarchy that offers regular, exclusive rewards, and the orders of evil who in fact “administer” the physics for how it dictates life must be lived, eventually have little more to offer in return for cooperation than the promise of moving higher up the ladder, at a time when adherents are supposedly “ready” for the next bit of allowed to “knowledge”.

Enough types of “evil’s kind” will have to memorize disparate catalogs of succinct definitions, which vary according to their orders, that are meant to be known in specialized ways, because the aggregated distribution of ideas behind evil’s meanings structures sentient conceptualizations across the total numbers of evil people – there could be three unique definitions of a(squared plus b(squared) equals c(squared) and all three would have nothing to do with the hypotenuse of a triangle – extrapolate the scenario and apply it to every type of evil – and that makes the sentient intent of evil people reliable (which keeps their actions predictable). In fact, teaching the majority of the tiers of evil’s hierarchy that complex math is all just a hex suits evil fine. Few people who are content with selfish rewards are concerned about how to correctly perform math; you could tell them it’s all hex and they’ll say, “Ha! I knew it.”

**EXPERIMENT #4**

This was written in the State of Nevada, which for a time held the rank of 49^{th} in the union for educational standards, weeks after Nevada’s Department of Education announced they are lowering educational standards again, which begs the question:

If people were to be introduced to these ideas* as* math, knowing the correct symbols from the beginning, would it matter if how the math is calculated was wrong? -If you taught that cancelling out the identical parts of the equation was correct. It

*will*eventually cause problems for some, but the math is algebra – it is not the math of taking care of personal finances, which is the only reason many, many people use math.

People are sentient beings, and sentience is the source of intent. Their conceptualization will tell them, “Okay, so evil will end”. They may even write out the equation as originally stated, and by measure of the actual physics a small amount of sentient knowing will become convinced it is safeguarded from evil, so the person’s intent may be expressed differently from that day forward, to some degree bettering the world.

In the grand scheme of things, that’s the only thing people doing the actual work of waging the Gnostic war will need, for a time. Naturally, the argument must be made concrete.

Physicists and mathematicians will throw the equation out, laughing about how it’s too stupid for them to consider claims about physics that are made using algebra, but these are people as well. Over the long term, their sentient conceptualizations may shift if they were kind enough to read the words before the equation, or if they were able to look at the equation long enough to know it is wrong. In fact, and this is subtle, if they read the math enough to know the wrong calculation, they within themselves acceded to the definitions of the model.

It’s no skin off their back – they certainly did not intend to – but their kind cannot account for sentience and they still to this day argue about gravity, so who’s to bother them about what their intents actually are?

**= = =**

Panoramic Production

A world away God flashed a message into the minds of every living person as they slept. By dawn everyone knew God had built for them a house in the center of that world’s remaining rainforest. With the house’s location came instructions to elect one among them to receive its key and enter. God said once this person is agreed upon, keys will materialize into his or her hands and only that person will be allowed to approach the house.

All across the world people knew what they had to do. There was little deliberation. During the six a.m. news hour a man’s face began to flash across televisions, tablets, phones and computer screens worldwide, whether on or not they were on. There was no possible way for him to have rigged such a broadcast – it seemed to have been shot while he was unawares and it was reported that the feed was not footage of any kind; the man’s every deed just showed up on screens everywhere, and he was found later that morning. He was quickly ushered onto a plane bound for the rainforest. The house’s keys materialized in his hand while he was miles above the ocean. At a remote landing strip he got into a helicopter which flew him the rest of the way, and he arrived to six news choppers hovering and circling an area where their crews had landed.

Dusk had just begun its approach. Bright lights were positioned to cover the entire clearing made for the house. Camera crews were everywhere, capturing every view from every angle around and above, sending it to every device, every channel all over the world. They all shared the man’s amazement as they discovered, simultaneously, that there was really nothing special about the house. A plain, three or four bedroom, one story tract home that looked like it could have been removed from a suburban development and relocated. No surrounding grass or yard of any sort, no pavement or asphalt, its foundation extended a yard above the ground, and three steps allowed easy access to the door.

The man put the key into the deadbolt with his right hand, unlocked it, turned the knob and pushed in, but the door wouldn’t give. He discovered the door to the house God had built opened outward. He stepped down one step, leaned back to open it all the way, then stepped back up. For a fraction of a second he looked into the house and entered, then, as his second foot landed inside, the entire structure collapsed upon him like it was made of cards.

They never found his body among the piled debris.

An empty house with a creaking front door that is always ajar, gently swaying – forever nudged back and forth by a breeze – through its abandoned rooms and halls, a voice speaks as if an invisible recorder started playback:

“There were certainly synchronicities. This projection of the infinite candle’s light has grown pale and flickering. Like a fire echoing off seven walls to shake the darkness of a world away. Allegory of the cave, what swimming pictures justifications make. Remember how glossy leaves shivered on branches and reflected sunlight – realizing the same wind making those leaves twinkle is shifting the hairs on your head. It’s actually just nervous registers, a few clicks ticking the skinniest hand along a mundane circular path. Rumors were circulating that our crazy Uncle Sam had actually had it in for us all along; that he had everyone’s thoughts ordered and filed, imaged upon thin screens, and fashioned into his own type of foil he would twist into a glimmering rope then unravel to a silver wrinkled plane over and over. Anyway, this would account for all these odd voices. Never mind what we say without speaking.”

God delivered the same vision of the same house in another world’s remaining rainforest with identical instructions to everyone. The scenario started out the same, except the chosen one was a woman. After opening the door she stepped backward down two steps and fixed her gaze on the entrance. She was consumed in the moment’s gravity, and while stepping from the second to the top stair, as she approached, the house collapsed.

The woman was unscathed, left standing before a pile of rubble, and she laughed uncontrollably. Unable to pause enough to speak, she laughed throughout all subsequent interviews, then she stopped the following morning. But the only sound she ever made for the rest of her life was hysterical laughter.