Tuesday, September 20, 2016


©Edward R. Close September 20, 2016
In my posts about TDVP, the scientific paradigm that puts consciousness into the equations of science, I have often mentioned the Calculus of Distinctions (CoD), a primary form of mathematical logic from which all known mathematic systems can be derived. I’ve also stated that I derived and/or validated most of the basic mathematical concepts supporting TDVP using the CoD. Even though I’ve published details of the CoD elsewhere, they are neither easily available, nor easily understood. This is a bit unfair to readers of my posts who have no idea what the CoD is. Until now, I justified leaving details about the CoD out of my posts for the general FB follower for the following reasons:

The concepts involved in the CoD are not trivial. It took me many years to understand their true importance. I developed the basic concepts of the CoD by expanding concepts from George Spencer Brown’s Laws of Form to include dimensionality and the consciousness of the observer between 1984 and 1986, and I first published the basic concepts of the CoD in my second book, “Infinite Continuity” in 1990. But for most people, learning the CoD, a new system of mathematical logic, seemed too onerous. On the other hand, I believed that the results obtained by applying the CoD, including explaining things the current materialistic scientific paradigm cannot explain, should be enough to get people interested.

Previously inexplicable things explained by application of the CoD included the Cabibbo angle in particle physics, why quarks combine in threes and why some elementary particles have an intrinsic ½ spin, just to name a few.  Explaining things that have puzzled mathematicians and physicists for years, in some cases, centuries, definitely go a long way toward proving the validity of the CoD and TDVP. But, however justified I may have been in the course of presentation I have followed, I must admit that, without at least a basic understanding of the CoD, anyone trying to understand my posts is missing an Important piece of the puzzle. So I decided to endeavor to rectify this state of affairs by explaining the CoD in terms that I believed anyone interested in TDVP could understand.

As I started to work on a simplified step-by-step explanation of the basics of the CoD, because CoD concepts integrate the logic of number theory, geometry and symbolic logic, I began to get deeper insights into the logical connections between the major branches of academic study investigating the nature of reality; specifically: philosophy, science, and mathematics, branches of thought that historically have been developed as if they were independent of each other, and that led me to an inspiration concerning the best way to present this introduction to the Calculus of Distinctions.

In the educational system we have developed over the past few hundred years, various aspects of philosophy, science, and mathematics are taught as separate subjects, and psychological improvement, spirituality, and religion are pursued via various practices as separate goals. While this may seem natural and even necessary in the development of human thought, it has led to a fragmentation of effort and departmental specialization to the point that people in one field cannot easily communicate with those in other fields. Researchers in theoretical physics, e.g., use terminology largely unknown to theologians, philosophers, psychologists, biologists and engineers. Mathematicians who call themselves number theorists and those working in applied mathematicians, might as well be speaking completely different foreign languages. But, I submit to you that reality is only one, not the disparate unrelated realities suggested in some disciplines. The illusion that different parts of reality might be governed by different, completely incommensurable laws is much more a product of the limitations of human observation, measurement and thought, than an actual multiplicity of realities.

Since the time of Pythagoras, the study of mathematics has become enormously sub-divided into a number of more and more abstract disciplines. Because of this, it is understandable that the casual reader of my posts might well think that the CoD is just another abstract side road in the multiplicity of super complex fields of inquiry. In fact, the truth is just the opposite.  The calculus of distinctions is the re-integration of conscious thought, the mathematics of arithmetic, algebra, geometry, and symbolic logic into one logical system.

Today, when one chooses, or, as is more often the case, is forced by public education to study mathematics, he/she will find the curriculum fragmented. The students’ first introduction to math may be in a course teaching them to do ‘applied math’ by learning how to punch keys on a calculator or computer. The only thing duller and less interesting than that are the details of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division that lurk behind the operation of a calculator. If, for some strange reason, a student decides to go further in academic mathematics, he or she will likely be indoctrinated into a series of progressively complex and boring courses including algebra, trigonometry, set theory, geometry, statistics, probability, and integral and differential calculus. If that’s not enough to convince a student to switch to some other major, we suspect there may be something mentally, physically, psychologically, or socially wrong with this individual.

Seriously, today’s math education systems are very poorly designed for anyone wanting to actually learn mathematics. They are generally not designed to teach students about mathematics all. Rather, they are designed to teach students how to use a few specific tools and techniques to solve numerical problems that someone thinks are important. In my opinion, many, perhaps most, people teaching math today know very little about mathematics. If you want to understand the deep nature mathematics, and how it fits into the larger picture of reality, you’re pretty much on your own. In today’s universities the focus is on learning more and more about less and less. The CoD reverses this trend.

This why I am eager to teach someone, anyone, about the Calculus of Distinctions. As I’ve said in previous posts and publications, the CoD starts at the beginning of the story, not in the middle as most formal math courses do. It integrates the basic ideas of conscious distinction, equivalence, number, dimension, substance and logic, into one consistent set of operations which allows us to re-integrate the disciplines of number theory, geometry, algebra, and symbolic logic, which never should have been separated in the first place. And, it allows us to put consciousness into the equations of science.

All knowledge and understanding begins with the conscious drawing of a distinction, the conscious awareness of self as different from the rest of the universe. This is where an understanding of the logic of mathematical reasoning starts, with your personal experience of knowing the difference between self and other, not with abstract concepts describing processes of calculation. This first step is described by G. Spencer Brown in Laws of Form as the basis of the Calculus of Indications. A distinction is further expanded and defined in the CoD as real, substantial and dimensional. In describing the reality we experience, secondary distinctions, i.e., distinctions in self and/or other, must have measurable extent and content and definable meaning. Measurable extent means dimensionality, measurable content means substance, and definable meaning means impact on experience or purpose.

In posts to come, I hope to make clear to you how developing the concepts of quantitative and qualitative thinking from the beginning of the conscious drawing of distinctions allows us to see the interconnectedness of all things and solve problems and answer questions not possible otherwise. I plan to post some important CoD proofs never seen before.

Because the ideas I am presenting in this series are sequential, each new post building on those that have gone before, I will add new posts to this post as ‘continuations’.

Readers familiar with G. Spencer Brown’s Laws of Form will notice some similarity in what follows here with his Appendix 2, which is the interpretation of his calculus of indications (CoI) for logic. In his original work, Brown established the fact that while distinctions may be drawn in any way we please, the Laws of Form are the same for any universe, and so the similarity in form should not be surprising. But it is a similarity in form only. Development of the CoD departs markedly from Brown’s adaption of the CoI for logic: Brown makes no distinction between real, perceived or conceptual distinctions, but because we are applying the logic of the CoD to the quantized reality which is our universe, we need to make it clear from the beginning that a real distinction drawn in our quantized reality is identified with an existent quantum unit or combination of existent quantum units.

The definition of a real distinction, then, is very simple; it must have three things: extent, content and relevance to the structure of reality. A hydrogen atom, for example, fulfills the requirements of a real distinction: it has extent because it occupies a finite volume of space, it has content because it has mass and energy, and it has relevance to the structure of reality because H atoms are important components of many organic and inorganic compounds forming much of the structure of the physical universe. But in TDVP we could not choose the Hydrogen atom to define the most basic quantum unit, because, as small as it is, it is made up of yet smaller real distinctions.

We found that the free electron was the best elementary particle to use to define the ultimate basic quantum unit for three reasons: 1. The electron has the smallest mass of any of the stable subatomic entities making up the elements of the Periodic Table, 2. by applying the principles of relativity and quantum mechanics to the spin dynamics of the electron as it is stripped from the Hydrogen atom, we are able to define the smallest possible quantum volumetric equivalence unit. 3. The mass, spin and energy of ionization are well established to several decimal places giving us all we need to define its volumetric equivalence as a unitary distinction.  Because it reflects three kinds of extent, three kinds of content and three kinds of meaningful impact to convey the logical structure of consciousness to the structure of the universe, we call it the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence (TRUE).  When we used this unit derived from the free electron as unitary, we found that all other elementary particles exist as volumetrically combined multiples of the TRUE unit. Thus the TRUE unit is a real distinction and the real building block of the universe.

‘Volumetrically combined’ means that the elementary particles that make up the nuclei of atoms, are not just stuck together like tinker toys, their mass/energy equivalence volumes merge to form a larger volumetrically symmetric entity. And the fact that all larger and larger stable particles, e.g., protons, neutrons, atoms, molecules, etc. are multiples of the unit, means all stable particles represent whole numbers of TRUE units, and the simple equations describing the combining of particles are composed of integers (whole numbers). This allows us to use the CoD with the unitary distinction defined as the TRUE unit, greatly simplifying calculations. You will see what I mean in the examples to follow.
To set up the CoD to handle logical calculations involving real distinctions that are whole number multiples of the TRUE quantum unit we let n represent an n-dimensional distinction. Note that this is significantly different than Brown’s symbol of indication. The subscript n allows us to represent real, versus conceptual distinctions, because when n = 0, this symbol represents a point, a mathematical singularity; when n = 1, it represents a line; when n = 2, it represents a plane; and when n = 3, it represents a volume.

Because of the simple fact that points, lines and planes have no capacity to contain any real substance, for n to represent a real distinction as defined above, n must be equal to or greater than 3. (n≥3).  In addition, we will let F represent a state of no distinction. 

Now, in terms of observations of the outside world we call the universe, 0 = 1 = 2 F, because, recalling the requirements for a real distinction (A real distinction must have three things: extent, content and relevance to the structure of reality), distinctions of 0, 1, or 2 dimensions do not meet the requirements: 0 has no extent, no content, and no relevance to the structure of the universe, and both 1 and 2 have extent and relevance, but no content. Finally, geometry (dimensionality), pure mathematics, language, and logic are coherently integrated by equating n when n ≥ 3 with the logical condition called True, and  with False.

With these simple definitions and interpretations of the CoD, we have the basis for a surprisingly powerful method for testing the logical validity of a wide range of statements, including verbal statements, mathematical conjectures and scientific hypotheses. We can articulate the connections between language, symbolic logic and the CoD with one-to-one relationships. For the next Continuation, I will prepare a table displaying those relationships.

Saturday, September 17, 2016


Explanations of why quarks combine in threes and why fermions have 1/2 intrinsic spin are in references 1 and 2 below. Additional explanations by TDVP of phenomena not explained in the current paradigm are presented in the list of peer-reviewed and published references. 

Number 1 does not appear on the archive list to the right, but you can go to it by typing 'The Simple Math of TRUE Units' in the search box above left.

In the archives of this blog
1. The Simple Math of TRUE Units, the True Unit, the Conveyance Equation and the Third   Form of Reality – Posted Feb, 1, 2016
2. Putting Consciousness into the Equations of Science, a series of posts: Part 1 through Part 20:
Putting Consciousness into the Equations of Science, Part 1: The Third Form of Reality (Gimmel) and the “TRUE” Units (Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence) of Quantum     

Followed by subsequent posts, to Part 20, Summary and Conclusions – Posted Jan. 5, 2016
3. Also see TRUE Units and the Natural Elements of the Periodic Table – Posted March 11, 2015.

In peer-reviewed and published references:

2. Close ER, Neppe VM: The thirteenth conundrum: introducing an important concept, TRUE units – Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence. IQNexus Journal 7: 2; 60-71, 2015

Related publications:
4. Neppe VM, Close ER: The concept of relative non-locality: Theoretical implications in consciousness research. Explore (NY): The Journal of Science and Healing 11: 2; 102-108, http://www.explorejournal.com/article/S1550-8307(14)00233-X/pdf 2015.
5. Close ER, Neppe VM: The eleventh conundrum: The double Bell normal curve and its applications to electron cloud distribution IQNexus Journal 7: 2; 51-56, 2015.
Relevant references by other authors

Friday, September 16, 2016


©Edward R. Close September 15, 2016
This post is dedicated to three of my heroes: Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955), Kurt Gӧdel (1906 – 1978), and George Spencer Brown (1923 – 2016), three geniuses who have made some of the most important contributions to our understanding of the nature of reality in the history of the human race.

I was recently asked to write an obituary for one of these great men for the Journal of Scientific Exploration. I was honored and pleased to be able to pay tribute to British polymath, G. Spencer Brown, the author of “Laws of Form”, a work very important to my life’s work and to the mathematical basis of the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP) developed in collaboration with Dr. Vernon M. Neppe, MD, PhD. 

See a tribute to George Spencer Brown at the end of this post.

This post is about proof. The concept of “proof” is often misused in everyday discussions. For example, we hear “Donald Trump’s failure to produce his tax records proves he has something to hide.” Or “Hillary Clinton’s fainting spell proves she is not physically fit to be President of the US.” And “The way the World Trade Center Towers collapsed proves that the government lied about 9-11.” These three statements are theories, more correctly called hypotheses or conjectures, and the word “proves” in each statement should be replaced by the word “suggests”. These hypotheses may or may not prove to be true.

In this post we will use the word “proof” very precisely. Proof is defined as follows:

A Proof is an indisputable chain of logic that connects evidence for a specific hypothesis with a specific unavoidable conclusion.

I will use a simple mathematical example to illustrate the precise meanings of the words “hypothesis” and “proof”:

Consider the infinite series of whole numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. If I add 1+2+3, I get 6; if I add 2+3+4, I get 9; and if I add 3+4+5, I get 12. Noticing that these three sums are all divisible by 3, I might jump to the conclusion that the addition of any three consecutive numbers will always produce a number that is divisible by 3.  But I have not proved this hypothesis for all sums of three consecutive numbers. The three sums I’ve done only suggest my hypothesis, they do not prove it. I can continue to add sequences of larger and larger numbers: 4+5+6=15; 5+6+7=18; etc. But I still do not have proof, only a stronger hypothesis. Someone may suggest that it might only work for single digit numbers. So to test this conjecture, I might try 10+11+12 and get 33, obviously a number divisible by 3.

So far so good, but I still don’t have proof that all such additions produce multiples of 3. In fact, I could continue until I filled pages with examples, or use a computer to check millions of sums of three consecutive numbers, and I still would not have a proof. My hypothesis is still just a hypothesis. It seems likely that it is true, but trial and error demonstrations constitute a feasibility argument, not proof.

I can, however, prove my hypothesis very simply as follows:

Let n = any whole number. Then n+1 is the next number and n+2 is the number after that. Then, n+(n+1)+(n+2) represents the sum of three consecutive numbers.
This representation can be simplified mathematically, as follows: n+(n+1)+(n+2)=n+n+1+n+2=3n+3=3(n+1), obviously divisible by 3 regardless of the whole number value of n.

Because I have proved it, I may now state my hypothesis as a theorem:

The sum of three consecutive numbers is always divisible by 3.

Mathematicians call a hypothesis a conjecture until a proof is found, then the hypothesis becomes a theorem. Scientists like to call a hypothesis a theory, and when proved, a theory becomes a paradigm, a successful working model of reality.  I have made this distinction in earlier posts, and I repeat it here because it is easy for anyone not familiar with the terminology of mathematics and science to confuse “theorem” with “theory” because of the similarity in spelling. So keep in mind that a theory, whether called a conjecture or a hypothesis, is a concise statement of something that is thought to be true, and may be true, but has not been proved. Such a statement becomes a theorem or a paradigm shift only after it has been proved with indisputable mathematical logic. As stated above:

A Proof is an indisputable chain of logic that connects evidence for a specific hypothesis with a specific unavoidable conclusion.

By using this precise definition, we can avoid confusing feasibility arguments, however convincing they may be, with actual proof.

Recently, a colleague referred to TDVP as a theory. Dr. Neppe corrected him, saying: “TDVP is not a theory.” A theory is a hypothesis, but once it is proved, it is no longer just a theory. TDVP has been proved with empirical data and mathematical logic.

The colleague’s use of the word theory, however, may not have been incorrect from his point of view, if he had not read or understood the proofs demonstrating the validity of TDVP.  He can also be forgiven for alluding to TDVP as a theory because misuse of the word theory is very common, even among scientists who should know better. The theory of relativity, for example, is not a theory. Relativity was a theory when Albert Einstein published the special theory of relativity in 1905, even though the mathematics strongly suggested it was correct, and it was still a just a theory when he published the general theory of relativity in 1915. But it actually is no longer a theory because it has been proved meticulously, many times over, many different ways.

The fact that relativistic corrections to Newton’s laws accurately predict observations and measurements of real physical objects proves the validity of relativity. Three examples of proof that relativity is a law of nature, not just a theory, are provided by the accurate determination of the following relativistic effects caused by extreme velocities and gravitational fields:

1. The perihelion precession of the planet Mercury
2. The deflection of light by the mass of the Sun
3. The Gravitational redshift of light

The validity of relativity as a law of nature has been confirmed many, many times by careful calculations of relativistic effects using the equations of special and general relativity, with results falling within the margin of measurement error. And the more precise the observations and measurements become as technology is improved, the more accurately the calculated results correspond with observation. Time dilation and length contraction for objects moving with very high velocities relative to the observer have also been measured and found to validate Einstein’s equations.

Calculations using the equations of general and special relativity have matched real-world experimental data every time, proving that relativity is no longer just a theory. It is a law of nature representing a major paradigm shift.

I recognize that there are intelligent people out there who still think Einstein was wrong. But I’ve found that those people usually don’t grasp the significance of the fact that the measurement of the speed of light is the same for all observers, regardless of relative motion. Because of this, they perceive paradoxes within applications of the ‘theory’, like the “clock paradox” or the “twin paradox”. They just can’t shake the illusion, born of the limitations of our physical senses, that space and time are universally present real reference frames unrelated to concentrations of mass and energy and relative motion. The many demonstrations of the validity of relativity prove that Einstein was right. In a relativistic space-time reality of four or more dimensions, 3-D perceptual paradoxes like the clock and twin paradoxes are resolved.

Similarly, quantum physics has also amassed a great number demonstrations of validity, of proof of counter-intuitive phenomena like non-locality, quantum entanglement. The details of quantum phenomena in a reality with more than 3 dimensions are “hidden” from our direct observation by the limitations of our physical senses and the extremely small size of quanta relative to the level of resolution provided by our sense organs and the technological extensions of them. As the details of reality not available for direct observation are filled in as the result of increasing refinement of application of the principles of relativity and quantum mechanics, indications of deeper reality are revealed. Increasingly, we have seen indications of the involvement of consciousness, hints of the need for a new paradigm that puts consciousness into the equations.  That is what TDVP has done.

We now have almost as many demonstrations proving the validity of TDVP as relativity or quantum mechanics. These proofs include explaining the spin number of fermions, why quarks combine in threes, the Cabibbo angle, the stability of life-supporting elements, and the existence and probable nature of dark matter and dark energy, just to name a few.

TDVP started out, about 7 or 8 years ago as the combination of ideas developed independently by Close and Neppe, in Transcendental Physics and Vortical Pluralism, respectively. The ideas came together in a nine-dimensional model of reality that included space, time and consciousness. Applying the calculus of distinctions, an expanded version of G. Spencer Brown’s calculus of indications to particle physics data, the model began to yield explanations of phenomena like those listed above that were not explained by the current scientific paradigm.

The calculus of distinctions was first introduced and applied to cosmological problems in my book “Infinite Continuity” published in 1990.  In my next book, “Transcendental Physics” first published in 1997, the calculus of distinctions was applied to the conscious process of observation, predicting the existence of consciousness as a non-quantum receptor. 

Refinement and expansion of the calculus of distinctions and application to the nine-dimensional spin model in collaboration with Dr. Vernon Neppe since 2008, has resulted in the discovery of a third form of reality, that we call gimmel, which is necessary for the existence of the universe as we know it.

With the discovery of the existence of gimmel, the link between the physical universe and consciousness, we are developing new concepts and explaining more real phenomena on an almost daily basis, and providing proof that TDVP is the long-awaited and much-needed shift from the current materialistic metaphysical based science to a comprehensive consciousness-based scientific paradigm, at last uniting the intellectual and spiritual search for the truth.

G. Spencer Brown was a creative mathematical logician extraordinaire, one of a handful of twentieth-century polymaths who saw the need to integrate spatial and numerical mathematics into a system of reasoning that is logically prior to conventional mathematics, symbolic logic and mathematical science. While I never had the privilege of meeting him in person, I became aware of his work in 1984 when I purchased a copy of his exceptionally well-written book, Laws of Form. This book is one of my most prized possessions. I re-read it from time to time, and gain new insights every time.

Similar to many brilliant thinkers who forge ahead of their time in history, he was misunderstood and misinterpreted by some who, although competent in their individual fields of specialization, failed to see the larger picture he was able to perceive. In my opinion he deserves a place of high honor in the Meta-Mathematics Hall of Fame, if there were such an institution, for revealing the connection of ‘imaginary’ numbers (an unfortunate misnomer) with symbolic logic and geometrical representation.

G. Spencer Brown was born in Lincolnshire England. He studied medicine and passed the First M.B. at London Hospital Medical College, at the age of seventeen in 1940; but, after serving in the Royal Navy from 1943 until 1947, he struck out in a different academic direction at Trinity College, Cambridge, earning Honors in Philosophy (1950) and Psychology (1951). From 1952 to 1958, he taught philosophy at Christ Church, Oxford and earned M.A. degrees in 1954 from both Oxford and Cambridge. His doctorate thesis “Probability and Scientific Inference” was published in 1957.

During the 1960s, he studied under the Scottish psychiatrist R. D. Laing. He also did post-graduate work with Bertrand Russel and Ludwig Wittgenstein, and upon recommendation by Bertrand Russell, he became a lecturer in formal mathematics at the University of London.

From 1969 onward, he was affiliated with the Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics at the University of Cambridge. In the 1970s and 1980s, he was a visiting professor at the University of Western Australia, and at Stanford University and the University of Maryland in the United States. In addition to his academic pursuits, he played chess, held two world records as a glider pilot, and was a sports correspondent to the Daily Express. He has also wrote novels and poems under the pen name James Keys.

George Spencer-Brown died in Wiltshire, England on August 25, 2016 at the age of 93.

I personally owe G. Spencer Brown a deep debt of gratitude, because without some of the calculus of indications theorems and innovative applications to logic published in his ground-breaking book, Laws of Form, my life’s work, documented in my books and other writings, especially Infinite Continuity and Transcendental Physics, and in Reality Begins with Consciousness, and a number of articles, papers and books written in collaboration with Dr. Vernon Neppe, would have been much more difficult, if not impossible.

In keeping with his statement in Laws of Form

Although all forms, and thus all universes, are possible, and any particular form is mutable, it becomes evident that the laws relating such forms are the same in any universe”, 

I believe this understanding should serve him well in any universe in which he now might find himself!

Edward R. Close

Wednesday, September 14, 2016


As you know, if you follow my postings, I believe that science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I believe they must work together. Science without spirituality is lame, like an automobile without an engine. Spirituality without science is blind, like someone imagining walking on streets of gold while wading into a swamp filled with snakes and alligators.

A well-respected spiritual teacher has said: “There is only one mind.” A well-respected scientist has said the same thing: “there is no evidence that consciousness is plural.” I agree with them. The scientific data and mathematics of TDVP actually prove it. With this in mind, imagine that you were an employee of a company located in the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City, September 11, 2001.

You had braved New York’s subway system to get downtown, emerged in a beautiful sunny morning, swiftly ascended many floors in one of the Tower’s efficient elevators, and arrived at your office with a cup of Starbuck’s coffee in one hand, your briefcase in the other. It was at 8:45 am. Your mind began the switch from the thoughts of your private life, your spouse and children, hopes and aspirations, to the memos on your desk, your list of things to do for the day, and the staff meeting scheduled for nine o’clock.

Suddenly, all hell broke loose: There was a deafening roar, something ripped through the wall just above your head, and, in a second that seemed stretched out to eternity, you were thrown across the room, slamming into the wall behind your desk. Another blast deafened you, and you were blinded as smoke and flames shot into the room. This blast pushed your body into the corner behind your desk, and blew the desk out through the window, leaving a gaping hole in the wall seventy-nine stories above the streets below. Barely conscious, you smelled burning jet fuel, and felt a searing heat. Staggering to your feet, you knew that you had to get away from the white-hot flames, or be burned alive. Instinctively, you stepped back away from the heat. But as the heat seemed to fade away, you realized that you were falling … falling to your death on the concrete a thousand feet below.

Just before your personal hell began, only yards away, another human being shouted “Allah-u Akbar!”  (God is great) in a hijacked Boeing 767 carrying 92 people, as he flew it into your building. How could another human being do such a thing?

Mohammed Atta was born into a well-educated, affluent family in Kafr el-Sheikh, east of Alexandria in Egypt. A good student, he studied engineering and architecture in Cairo and city planning in Germany. An observant Sunni Muslim, he attended mosque regularly in Cairo and Germany, and went on Hadj (the Muslim’s devout pilgrimage to Mecca) in 1995. He was a good Muslim. But he saw western architecture as gross and ugly compared to the graceful arabesque domes, spires and minarets of the Arab world. He heard America described as “The Great Satan” every day in the mosques he attended. Eventually, he came to believe in jihad, which radical Muslims interpret as the “Holy War”.

I lived and worked in the Middle East for several years, I worked with Muslims, including Saudis, Palestinians, Jordanians and Egyptians. Because one can best understand a culture by studying its language and religion, I made an effort to learn Arabic, and I also started reading the Qur-ận (usually misspelled and mispronounced “Koran” by English speakers) the day I arrived in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia. I was surprised to find that the Arabic language is easy to learn.  It was surprising because I had been told that Arabic is very difficult. This idea appears to come mostly from the unfamiliar complexity of the different forms and styles of Arabic characters and the fact that Arabic is written right to left, opposite to most Indo-European languages. But because Arabic, like most pure languages, is phonetic, it is easy to learn to read.  
For a very short course in Arabic, let’s look at three important words: Allah, Islam, and jihad. The root words of the Abrahamic or Semitic languages like Arabic and Hebrew, are formed by three consonants. These three words, e.g., are each formed by three consonants in specific sequences: ALH, SLM, and JHD. Vowels and punctuation are added to produce other words nuanced from the tri-consonant roots. The word Allah simply means God, or “the one God”. The word Islam comes from the root of the Arabic word “salaam” which simply means “peace".  A closely related word, "aslama", means "to surrender" or "submit". So the word Islam means peace attained by complete submission to the will of God. This is why Muslims refer to Islam as the religion of peace. Incidentally, I have met devout Muslims who literally exude an aura of peace. So how could a practice intended to bring peace lead to something like the horror of 9-11? To answer that, we need to look at the third word: jihad.
Islam means the way to peace. Jihad, on the other hand, is the opposite of peace. The literal meaning of jihad is similar to the meaning of the English words to strive or struggle. In the verses of the Qur-ận, jihad variably refers to both inner and outer struggles related to promoting Islam for the triumph of good over evil. During his lifetime, the Prophet Mohammed referred to outer conflicts to protect and promote Islam as the minor jihad, and the inner struggle to be a good Muslim as the major jihad.
Now, to understand, but certainly not to justify or condone, 9-11, you also need to know that the Qur-ận teaches, and most Muslims believe, that God has spoken to Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed in the past, but His communications to Mohammed, the latest in this line of Holy Prophets, supersedes all earlier messages, and numerous passages in the Qur-ận declare that Islam is to become the dominant religion of the world, and the basis for world government. The word of God delivered by the Prophet Mohammed also declares that it is the duty of every Muslim to do everything in their power to bring that about. This clear scriptural injunction is the radical Jihadist’s (Religious Warriors/Islamic Terrorists) misguided excuse for committing horrible inhuman acts like 9-11.
Today’s devout Muslims correctly point out that Islam is not the only religion to use the idea of Holy War to promote violence against other organized religions and political regimes. In fact, Holy Wars have a long, well-documented history in the Abrahamic religions, not just in Islam, but in Christianity and Judaism as well. Radical Jihadists further specifically justify acts of terror against Western Civilization because it has become more and more irreligious and immoral in recent years, with the US earning the label “the Great Satan”. Every day I spent in Arab countries, I heard this repeated countless times on Aljazeera, the state-supported Arab TV, and in cartoons and editorials in Arab and English-language newspapers. There is a deep-seated conviction in the Muslim Culture that the West, and North America in particular, is the Sodom and Gomorrah of today’s world. And Hollywood, television and mainstream scientists professing atheism give them plenty of highly visible evidence to support this view of Western Civilization.
One final point: Radical Islam is similar in many ways to any radical political movement, because in both cases, the ends are believed to justify the means. The assumption that the outcome of a theoretically morally superior civilization for  the greater good of all, is believed to be sufficient justification for enforcing a radical system, religious or secular, on the masses by any means necessary, even if those means include deception, distortion and violence. 
Of course, none of this justifies what happened on 9-11, or any of the increasing number of murders of innocent people happening across the civilized world today. But I’m hoping it may help you to understand how it can happen.

Unthinkable violence committed by misguided human beings against other human beings in the name of religious and/or political ideology is not new on this planet. The root of radical Islamic terrorism is the same evil that motivated ordinary human beings to commit unthinkable atrocities in Russia as Revolutionary Communists, in Germany as National Socialists (Nazis), in China as Maoists, etc. 
The slippery slope to inhuman atrocities begins with condemnation of those who don’t believe and think as you do. It starts with categorizing those who don’t agree with you as bigots and homophobes. It is only a short slide from there to the mob mentality that eventually allows ordinary human beings to commit heinous acts of violence against other human beings. Think about it. Pray that we can evolve spiritually beyond the adolescent practices of name calling and rock throwing soon.
Edward R. Close 9-11-2016

Sunday, September 11, 2016


First, let’s be clear: “Dark matter” and “dark energy” are, like many popularized scientific terms, complete misnomers. Take the “Big Bang Theory”, for example: It is a catchy title, but the origin event of the universe as it is understood by mainstream scientists today was not “big” and was not a “bang’. The only thing correct about this title is the word “theory”. It is a theory. The same is true about “dark matter” and “dark energy”. The phenomena known as dark matter and energy are neither matter nor energy. Let me explain.

In the 1930s, when Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky, working at Cal Tech, discovered while calculating the mass of a certain spiral galaxy, that the observed motion of the galaxy could not be explained by the amount of mass it contained. He concluded that there must be additional matter in the galaxy that could not be seen, and assumed that it wasn’t visible because it did not emit or reflect light. He therefore called it “dark matter”. His discovery was largely ignored because it was overshadowed by Edwin Hubble’s discovery at about the same time of the correlation of the red shift of light from distant stars with distance, which was interpreted as evidence of universal expansion. Besides, no one could imagine just what this “dark” substance could be.

Many years later, based on meticulous observations of the Andromeda galaxy, Astronomers Vera Rubin and W.K. Ford published "Rotation of the Andromeda Nebula from a Spectroscopic Survey of Emission Regions," [Astrophysical Journal 159:379, 1970], which documented the effects of Zwicky’s “dark matter” in that galaxy. They then continued to make the same kind of observations for over sixty other spiral galaxies, confirming the same effects in all of them, which was interpreted as an indication that the presence of dark matter was a wide-spread phenomenon in the universe. And, the effects were huge, indicating that more than 90% of the mass was missing!

There have been some speculations, mostly by non-scientists, that dark matter and dark energy might have something to do with consciousness. Such speculations are usually related to the idea that conscious experiences might arise as field phenomena associated with the brain and other organs, and possibly even with organisms other than human beings. This kind of speculation arises, at least in part, because consciousness, like dark matter and dark energy, is not directly detectable as mass or energy in the forms with which we are familiar. Such theories are generally considered by most scientists to be wild speculation, not rising to the level of scientific hypothesis or even rational speculation, because there has been no known data or mathematical proof supporting such a connection. That is, until now.

For a long time now, we’ve known that matter is not the solid impenetrable substance it appears to be. The illusion of solid matter is created by extremely small quanta spinning at near light speed angular velocities like vortexes of energy, and the limitations of our physical senses. And now, the application of the appropriate mathematical procedures for quantum reality, the calculus of distinctions, to Large Hadron Collider particle physics data has revealed that a portion of the substance that makes up atoms at the quantum level is not detectable as either matter or energy. This means we have discovered a third form of the substance of reality, which we call gimmel. Like so-called dark matter and energy, it is only detectable indirectly because its effect on angular momenta, stabilizing atomic and subatomic structure.

Further investigation, reported in the paper whose abstract was published in the last post, shows that the proportions of gimmel associated with electron shells and with the nuclei of atoms are virtually the same, within statistical error, as the published proportions of “dark” energy and “dark” matter in the universe as calculated from data from the Hubble Probe. We have also seen, in earlier studies by Neppe and Close, that gimmel has characteristics usually attributed to consciousness. It is the organizer of logical structure and meaning that supports life. Thus it appears quite possible, or perhaps even very likely that what astrophysicists are calling “dark” matter and energy are not matter and energy at all, but are actually forms of a wide-spread form of consciousness, confirming the intuitions of many non-scientists.

Friday, September 9, 2016


A data analysis preliminarily validates the new hypothesis that the ratio of dark matter and dark energy to gimmel and TRUE units (Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence) is ‘contained’ in the atom: Dark matter correlates with gimmel in the atomic nucleus and dark energy with gimmel in electrons.

Vernon M Neppe MD, PhD and Edward R Close PhD, PE [1][2][3]
Citation: Neppe VM, Close ER: A data analysis preliminarily validates the new hypothesis that the atom 'contains' dark matter and dark energy: Dark matter correlates with gimmel in the atomic nucleus and dark energy with gimmel in electrons. IQ Nexus Journal 7: 3; 80-100, 2016.
Neppe and Close have previously demonstrated that the proportion of combined volumetric dark matter plus dark energy in the cosmos correlates almost exactly with the proportions of gimmel to TRUE units in the corresponding most abundant elements in the cosmos (0.0008 difference in score). Gimmel is the so-called third substance besides mass and energy, and it is mass-less and energy-less and without it, mathematically, all atoms would necessarily be unstable, and gimmel is calculated using a new method of quantitating atoms, Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence (TRUE). This study is now extended to the atom by mathematically comparing the ratios of volumetric dark matter to dark energy with the ratios of gimmel in protons and neutrons (nucleons) compared with gimmel in electrons. Despite data showing that certain factors can be up to 3% different in dark matter and dark energy alone, our derivation shows that the two results are within 2.27% of each other. This correlative result may possibly imply that dark matter and dark energy exist in every atom. Specifically, the results support the hypothesis that the far more loosely bound electron may involve dark energy, yet dark matter may involve the tightly bound strong forces of the nucleon. The implications of these findings are huge. We postulate that ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ would not fit into the Standard Model of Physics of 3 dimensions of space in a moment in time. Instead, these ‘dark ’components would fit into our 9 dimensional spin model (9D), Moreover, as gimmel is conceptualized across 9D in the finite, and if gimmel is in union with these ‘dark’ substances, then these two should also be applied in the 9D spin context. Dark matter and dark energy are ‘contained’ in the atom but only relative to the 9-dimensional explanatory model: 9D has previously been demonstrated by Close and Neppe. We need not look to bizarre locations in the cosmos, possibly just to the atom. And we might have located the missing 95.1% of dark substance.
Key words: 9 dimensions, Atom, Close, Cosmology, Cosmos, Cube, Daled, Dark energy, Dark matter, Electron, Gimmel, Mathematics, Neppe, Neutron, Nucleon, Proton, Ratios, Third substance, TDVP, TRUE units, Unit, Volume

[1] Vernon M. Neppe MD, PhD, Fellow Royal Society (SAf), DPCP (ECAO) and Edward R. Close PhD, PE. DCF (ECAO): Pacific Neuropsychiatric Institute, Seattle (pni.org) (Neppe: Director; Close: Research Associate); and Exceptional Creative Achievement Organization (Neppe: Distinguished Creative Professor; Close, Distinguished Creative Fellow).
[2] © ECAO. 2016.
[3] We gratefully acknowledge the Exceptional Creative Achievement Organization (ECAO.us), who hold copyright, for permission to
publish this article.