FredrickS

Hello everybody.

FredrickS 18:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

My name is Fredrick Schermer, and I am a person who is interested in structures. As a deeper goal in life, I always look for the truth, which is an interesting endeavor, since there often is no overall truth, but mainly truths that find their location within their own specific structures. This, I consider an overall truth.

Another fact of importance about me is that I moved from a small country (the Netherlands) to a large country (the United States) and discovered/experienced first-hand the differences between cultural truths, such as customs, mores and structures, that come with these differences in setting. I appear to be focusing on small matters and make them important, which can possibly be explained by my Dutch upbringing where matters of small distances are dealt with on a daily basis, and where many points of view — including those found with minority groups — are often politically expressed and considered. I hope I do not come across as too sensitive to the prominent role convention plays in the larger picture; depending on the political structure in place, conventions tend to push out other specific truths, and I don't like that. In the American political setting, for instance, only two political parties are able to make the decisions, delivering therefore fewer -more specific- people to influence the convention making process, resembling a plutocracy. Nations with a two party system tend to be English speaking nations. In most democracies of the world multiple parties can bring their arguments to the table, often establishing a broader view on issues, and this encourages people to make up their own minds about issues. For Wikipedia, which according to me must satisfy the standards of being reliable and multi-faceted, I prefer having a conflict mentioned rather than having a choice presented with all the pros for just one side; even mentioning the cons to the other side would inform the reader of the existence of a conflict, and should therefore be prefered. My personal belief system is one of multiple views; all possibly correct, while at the same time each part does not necessarily have to be in harmony with another.

Books

I am a writer, and I am currently working on a book about political systems. My first book The Proof of Nothing, a theory of everything (online title: In Search of a Cyclops) was published in 2000 in which the phenomenon of Nothing is put center stage, and discussed in relationship to everything (else). In this book, I deliver mathematical evidence that suggest that zero always exists when mentioning 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. (not to be confused with first, second, third, etc). The significance of this seemingly insignificant feature is the delivery of a vital difference between the current theory of the Big Bang, and this proposed second theory of the Big Bang — both similar and both leading to the exact same facts, but the latter also consisting of a fundamental nothing (which should not be confused with nothingness, a word I don't use); I sometimes refer to this idea as 'Empty Nest.' When looking back in time, the center of the Big Bang is not involved with materialization — rather the center is almost undisturbed (hence the name Empty Nest). It behaves then much like the center of a balloon in which all molecules are under high pressure and that close to all move almost perfectly outward all around as if the balloon is punctuated from all sides at once (which is a condition that cannot be performed on a balloon in a perfect way, but that delivery — close to perfectly executed — is one of the options for how the Big Bang took place). Under such conditions, a few molecules in the center would be stirred, but not shaken. As such, materialization (which occurs in/during the outward movement) would then be an outward manifestation of energy while the center of the Big Bang does not participate in that process of materialization; though it should nevertheless be considered a fundamental part of the Big Bang.

Study/Work

Since structure is so vital in my understanding of the world, it may not come as a surprise that I became a transportation planner.