Thursday, February 21, 2019
MY TALK WITH GOD
If you don’t believe that a two-way conversation with God is possible, then don’t read this. This is not for you. Those of you who knew my soulmate Jacqui, probably know that she talked with God every day of her life, and that sometimes He answered immediately, sometimes not. You may also know that Jacqui was very psychic, even as a little girl. As she neared the end of her life, because she was in so much pain, she asked Him daily if she could come be with Him. For months, He said no, and told her about specific things she had to do before she could come home. Finally He said yes, and as soon as she heard this answer, she told me, including exactly when she would be allowed to leave her pain-wracked body. There is more about this in our book, “Secrets of the Sacred Cube and a Cosmic Love Story”, which is now in press.
Last night I was very ill, suffering from severe vertigo, similar to what happened to me in the Great Pyramid in Egypt, nine years ago in February 2010. I also wrote about that in our book, and I posted a description on this blog site. To find it, just search for “pyramid” on this site. The experience was very unpleasant with the vertigo culminating with extreme regurgitation, after which I left my body.
Last night I thanked God for the relief of being free from the agony of the body, and asked if I could join Jacqui. Not having her by my side physically, has literally left a hole in my life. Even though I often feel her presence when I think about her, the tasks of everyday life sometimes keep me from thinking of her, and I miss her terribly. The answer I received was both reassuring and disappointing. I was told yes, I could choose not to return to the physical body, and yes, we could be together again, but that I must know what the consequences of that choice would be, before I decided whether to return to my body or not.
This is what I was told: If I chose not to come back, and to go on to be with my beloved, we would both have to return to Earth again to complete the mission to which we committed a long time ago. Jacqui had already said, just before she exited her body that final time, that she wanted me to complete our work, so I chose to come back. Completing the book with our story revealing the mission is the first step.
When I wrote this yesterday, I hesitated to post it because I thought it would be difficult for people who know me as a scientist to believe what I am reporting. A scientist is supposed to be super skeptical and very careful about anything blatantly related to the existence of God. I thought perhaps just writing it down was a needed relief, and enough; it didn't need to be posted.
Tonight, after bathing and putting clean sheets on the bed, I retired. I had had a positive, healing day, feeling much better physically, expecting a good night’s sleep. But God woke me after only a few minutes, flooding me with energy. At first, I couldn’t understand why I was wide awake and full of energy. I read and answered some email and FB messages for a while, watched several youtube videos, and then tried to go to sleep again, to no avail. Then I realized what the trouble was: I was supposed to post this account of my talk with God. By not doing it, I was not honoring Him; and it is very much needed and important at this point in time for more people, especiallly scientists, to openly honor God.
Friday, February 15, 2019
ON THE VALUE OF FREEDOM OF THOUGHT
I value freedom of thought above and beyond everything else. I am neither a republican nor a democrat. I am not a joiner by nature; I resist being a “card-carrying” anything, and I try my very best to be objective with regard to beliefs and causes touted by others. I detest politics, but when I am forced to take the time to analyze religious and political ideas, I find them almost always based in beliefs that are contrary to any definable reality and lacking in logic. I try, however, not to judge the person or persons pushing religious or political agendas, because they may be sincere, regardless of how misguided their ideas may be. I think it is important to remain independent of labels and categories, because identification with a group or a philosophy robs one of freedom of thought.
It appears to me that the history of the United States of America is littered with a plethora of self-serving political opportunists, with a paltry few enlightened beings capable of improving and uplifting the generally desperate human condition. Once in a great while, a run-of-the-mill politician may accidentally do some good, but that’s not a sufficient reason to support them. I agree with an elderly lady, who when asked by Jonny Carson, who she was going to vote for, said “Oh, I never vote; it only encourages them!” Elections in the US for years now, and still today, are most often determined by disinformation spread by intellectually dishonest political operatives spending staggering sums of money. More than 90 years ago, Mark Twain observed that, in the USA “There is no native criminal class except Congress.”
Why do some people decide to become political activists and/or politicians? Most will say it’s because they want to make a difference in the world, to improve the lot of some, or all people. But their hypocrisy is often revealed by the chaos in their own lives. How can you hope to improve the world, if your own life is a mess? Jesus is reported in Matthew 7:5 to have said: “Hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye mote thy eye ” Improving the world starts with first improving yourself. It is all too easy to blame your ills on someone or something else, and fall into the self-serving bubble of false security of the status quo. This is what has happened with congress.
It seems to me that congress is a prime example of the blind leading the blind. During my lifetime, congress has devolved from potential leaders, to a group of befuddled muddlers who consume huge amounts of taxpayers’ money while doing little or nothing of real value. This inbred inefficiency has allowed the country to slide into the quagmire of self-pity and retrograde socialism. The stated goals of socialism are never evil, but they are seductively alluring. In every case, past and present, socialism has led to more death, destruction and misery than any other form of government known to man. And socialism is to atheistic communism as mildly addictive drugs are to crack cocaine. It always leads to devaluation of the individual and rejection of the spiritual nature of life. In the name of compassion for the down-trodden, it forces everyone to conform to the dictates of government, giving those who run the government absolute power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
It is this state of affairs that led to the election of the disrupter named Donald J. Trump. Under the conditions we find ourselves un today, it is only someone who has no allegiance to the established lethargy who can get things done. Whether you love or hate President Trump and what he is doing, he is saving this country, at least for a while, from the kind of decline that destroyed the Holy Roman Empire, and every other civilization on this planet in the last 10,000 years.
If you identify strongly with either the hard right, or the extreme left politically, then, in my opinion, you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. If you become a political activist, you have no freedom of thought, and I believe we should value freedom of thought above all else. It is important to remain independent of labels and categories, because personal identification with a political group or philosophy robs us of the freedom to think clearly.
Sunday, February 10, 2019
Let’s look at the four scientific theories favored by mainstream scientists today that, in the previous post, I have said are demonstrably false:
THE BIG BANG THEORY
The Big Bang Theory is defined in an online Science Dictionary as “A cosmological model which describes early development of the universe. It occured around 13.798 billion years ago, resulting in extremely hot and dense state of the universe which began to expand rapidly.
around 13.798 billion years ago” by direct evidence. That hasn’t happened. It is still a theory.
The second sentence is grammatically incorrect because the subject of the sentence, “It”, ostensibly refers to the subject of the first sentence, the big bang theory, “a cosmological model” which I’m pretty sure did not occur around 13.798 billion years ago. It is meant, of course, to refer to an actual explosion, which has not been indisputably proved to have happened at all.
Incidentally, grammatically necessary connectives are absent in both sentences, and the word ‘occurred’ is misspelled in the second sentence on the website. But these syntactic errors are so insignificant relative to the other problems with the definition, that it’s hardly worth mentioning them. I do so only to point out that it is consistent with the sloppiness of the entry and reveals that it was not checked for grammar or spelling.
The more interesting problem with the second sentence is the implication that the big bang occurred in a state and environment of absolute nothingness “resulting in [an] extremely hot and dense state of the universe which began to expand rapidly.of creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing), a doctrine invented by early Roman Catholic theologians after the original teachings of the pre-Christian Judeans, Jesus and the first Christian theologian, Origin, were subverted by the Emperor Justinian in his anathemas against Origin, in 553 AD.
A scientific theory describing the origin of all space, time, matter, and energy approximately 13.7 billion years ago from the violent expansion of a singular point of extremely high density and temperature.”
This definition avoids the logically indefensible creatio ex nihilo, but runs afoul of logic, perhaps even more profoundly, by saying that everything was in “a singular point of extremely high density and temperature.” If it was a singular point (a mathematical singularity) the density and temperature would have been infinite or undefinable, not just “extremely high”, and then the question arises of how everything got into that infinitely compressed state in the first place.
Another definition that avoids creatio ex nihilo is found on Princeton’s Wordnet. Big bang: “The theory that the universe originated sometime between10 billion and 20 billion years ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature.”
Their use of the word “cataclysmic” is a poor choice because cataclysmic means catastrophic, disastrous, dreadful, or devastating. This raises the question: What existed before the big bang to be devastated? The assumption that a “small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature” existed before the big bang raises the questions of how that small blob of matter came to exist, and what caused it to suddenly explode? If the big bang was the original event resulting in everything that exists today, It could not have been “big”, or a “bang”, or catastrophic. Such terms are attempts to describe something indescribable, suggested by evidence that the universe is expanding, in terms of things that exist today.
While very popular because it is easily visualized, the big bang theory has been plagued with serious problems from the beginning. When inferred by simply running cosmic events backward in an expanding universe, the big bang theory fails because the universe has objects in it, determined by independent evidence to be older than the universe itself. This problem was addressed by proposing that there was a period of rapid expansion, when the universe was expanding much faster than the speed of light. This had to have occurred before any matter as we know it came into existence. But, like quantum mechanics, the rapid inflation theory requires that time and space are not what we think they are.
The fact is, the big bang theory is only one possibility that can be inferred from the evidence that the universe is expanding. A much more logical possibility is that there was no absolute beginning before which there was nothing, and the expansion is either an illusion, or it has a cause. The idea of a universal origin event is dependent upon the concept of absolute nothingness, which is logically indefensible because it requires creatio ex nihilo. Does this mean, as some scientists claim, there is no need for a creator, a higher intelligence or God? No, it does not. It means that something has always existed, whether it was a physical universe or something else, which may have included a primary form of consciousness. With the application of the calculus of distinctions, a quantum calculus, leading to the discovery of gimmel, the non-physical aspect of reality, the existence of an eternal primary consciousness is implied.
Conclusion: There was no big bang as hypothesized by materialist science.
THE FINITE UNIVERSE THEORY
The 13.8 billion-year finite age of the universe is estimated based on the mistaken idea that there was a big bang. But there was no big bang.
Conclusion: The universe has always existed in some form, and will always exist in some form.
THE AGE OF THE PLANET EARTH
Modern science estimates the age of the Earth based on radioactive dating methods. Using these methods, the oldest rocks found on Earth (small zircon crystals found in Western Australia) are dated at about 4.4 billion years. the oldest known minerals found in meteorites are dated at about 4.567 billion years. Scientists conclude that this puts the age for the solar system and the upper limit for the age of our planet at about 4.5 billion years. Reference: Dalrymple G. Brent, Ancient Earth, ancient skies: the age of Earth and its cosmic surroundings. Stanford, 2004.
There are two problems with this conclusion: radioactive dating assumes that the flow of time is uniform and constant over all space and time, which we now know is not true; and the entire crust that forms the surface of the Earth, including the meteorites that fall on it, is recycled by plate-tectonic subduction and continent building approximately every 2.5 to 3.8 billion years.
Conclusion: The age of the oldest rocks and minerals found today on or in the crust of the Earth, is not necessarily the actual age of the solar system or the planet Earth.
CIVILIZATION ON THIS PLANET
The idea of something from nothing (creatio ex nihilo) is not supported by empirical evidence, and Einstein’s general relativity shows that the measurement of spacetime is relative to the motion and proximity of the observer to massive objects. So time is different in different inertial systems, and in different parts of the universe. All available evidence supports the mathematical accuracy of describing dynamic change in cycles advancing through multi-dimensional spacetime, not absolute beginnings and ends. There is no reason to believe that the development of civilizations is immune from cyclic change.
In The Holy Science, a book written by Swami Sri Yukteswar Giri, an astronomer and life-long student of Vedic wisdom, the period of the rise and fall of consciousness on this planet was calculated to occur in about 24,000 year cycles, consisting of 12,000 years in an ascending arc, and 12,000 years in a descending arc, for a total of 24,000 years. (See the Figure below.)
Ascent 1894 500 AD Descent
Ascent 1894 500 AD Descent
In addition, he calculated that, at the time he was writing the Holy Science in 1894, we had advanced 194 years into the ascending Dwapara Yuga, the first period above the lowest point. Since the ascending Kali Yuga (the ascending half of the lowest Yuga, the period of nearly total absence of mental virtue, science and spirituality) is 1200 years, the nadir of development in this cycle was about 500 AD, very close to the year (553 AD) when Justinian usurped the power of the Pope and subverted the teachings of Jesus and the writings of Origen. We are now, in 2018, about 318 years into the ascending Dwapara Yuga. This means that the rise and fall of the mental virtue of sentient beings on this planet has occurred four times in the last 110,000 years, and we are 318 years into the fifth ascent.
Is there any empirical evidence supporting the existence of a high level of human development more than 10,000 years ago to be found on planet Earth? Yes, there is: In Southern Turkey, a mound called Gӧbekli Tepe (Round-belly Hill) has been excavated, and the oldest layer has been reliably dated to have been used from 10,800 to 11,600 years ago. It included 10-ton stone pillars decorated with stylized bas-relief sculptures of animals, distorted human arms and hands and cryptic symbols. There are other archeological sites with stone structures and carvings that very likely cannot be duplicated today, even with our modern technology. However, most of them are dated by archeologists as being built more recently than the stone pillars of Gӧbekli Tepe: The Egyptian Pyramids, 2,700 to 7,000 years ago, Stonehenge, about 5,000 years ago, Mayan ruins, 1,000 to 3,000 years ago, Puma Punku, Nasca Lines, etc., about 1,500 years ago.
At first glance, this evidence doesn’t seem to fit into Sri Yukteswar’s cycles of time. But this is because we have the erroneous idea that time is a uniform backdrop within which all events occur in a linear fashion. We are drawing the wrong conclusion because our ingrained idea about spacetime is false. It is based on the short-term appearance that time is linear and unidirectional, and that, along with space, time is everywhere uniform. But this completely ignores Einstein’s general relativity, and a key concept he expressed in his final addition to his work on relativity. He realized that space and time have no existence of their own. When we combine this understanding with Sri Yukteswar’s time cycles, things begin to make sense.
Even though modern science is only a few hundred years old, we like to think that, if the mental virtue (scientific and spiritual understanding) of sentient beings was at an apex in 11,500 BC, then there should have been great cities with towering buildings, and wonderous machines all over the planet, yet there seems to be no evidence of that. Why? First, a lot may have been obliterated from the surface of the planet by erosion, plate-tectonic subduction, and other geologic processes, and even by human activity, in the 12,000 years of descent. Second, 12,000 ascending years of mental virtue and spiritual advancement may not result in anything even vaguely similar to what we have now, near the low point, things that we have developed within just a few hundred years. It is entirely possible that conscious beings may evolve mentally and spiritually in 12,000 years to the point where buildings, machines, and even physical bodies would be completely unnecessary. - Imagine a planet returned to its natural pristine condition!
According to general relativity, the spacetime of a mass-energy system is defined by the periodicity of the rotation and revolution of objects within the system. Our hours, days and years are defined by the movements of the objects within our solar system, and what we call space, is defined by the mass-energy-consciousness field relationships between the objects of the system. Time within another solar system, thousands of light years away, may be passing at a very different rate relative to ours, because the rotations, revolutions and the masses of the objects in that system are different than in ours, and because of their motion relative to us.
The relationship of the rise and fall of civilizations to the most dominant periodic cycle of rotation in the physical system within which it exists, as stated by Sri Yukteswar, is reasonable because, as discovered in the development of TDVP, the stability and thus specific rotational dynamics of physical system is produced by the presence of gimmel in the atoms.
What about those sites with stone monuments, built with amazing engineering skill and precision, more than 1000, and less than 10,000 years ago, widespread around the world? Were they really built by the ancestors of the people now living there who were presumably less advanced than their descendants, who had nothing but primitive tools? Here are three possible answers to this question:
1. Most of these sites were built at a time of mental virtue and spiritual understanding in the last descending age than where we are now in the new ascending age, so they may have had memories and/or records of higher knowledge from the last age of highest development that was lost as the world passed through the lowest point about 500 AD, when the Great Libraries in Alexandria, Caesarea and elsewhere were burned.
2. Some of the sites may be far older than archeologists estimate, dating back to previous high points of development.
3. They may have been built by extraterrestrials from more advanced civilizations within our galaxy, as temporary bases for various reasons.
It is conceivable that all three of these answers may be correct for some of the sites.
Conclusion: The current civilization is most likely NOT the most advanced development of conscious beings ever to exist on this planet.
Thursday, February 7, 2019
SOME MAINSTREAM IDEAS ARE SCIENCE FICTION, NOT SCIENCE
When I say some mainstream ideas are science fiction, by ‘science fiction’ I don’t mean a futuristic story created for entertainment, I mean something that is fictitious, i.e., actually false. A lot of things accepted and reported as science today are not real, and some things routinely rejected by mainstream science actually are true. If you don’t believe this could be the case, just look at the history of science. It is not uncommon for a hypothesis once accepted as fact because it was consistent with the mainstream view, to turn out to be untrue; and it is not uncommon for some things rejected because they were not consistent with the mainstream view, to be proved to be true. There are ample instances of both of both types of turnarounds, but I’ll mention only a couple of each that are of major significance.
For many years, most people, including some early scientists, believed the earth was flat. The idea that the earth could be something like a ball spinning in empty space was, to them, obvious nonsense. Then, when the earth was considered to be the center of the universe, the astronomer Claudius Ptolemy worked out a system of cycles and epicycles that appeared to adequately explain the erratic behavior of the known planets. Both of these scientific ideas proved to be false, because they were based on false assumptions.
The text from a physical geology course I took in the early 1960s identified the continental drift theory proposed by a meteorologist named Alfred Wegener in 1915, as pseudoscience, i.e., an idea that had been thoroughly discredited by geologists. But just a few years later, the same idea that mainstream geologists had called a ‘crack-pot’ theory, proved to be true, and was renamed plate tectonics. Even Einstein’s 1905 idea that the measurement of space and time in one inertial reference frame from another moving reference frame varies according to relative velocity was considered by most mainstream physicists to be “utter nonsense” until it was proved to be true by empirical data.
What’s the point? The point is that science is never complete. It moves forward on theories and testable hypotheses. and thus is never completely correct nor completely wrong. Science is always a work in progress. The problem is that when a mainstream scientist says something, the media presents it as if it is prima facie truth, even though it may be based on unproven concepts, and the public gets the impression that everything about science as we know it is solid fact. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many things believed by mainstream scientists right now will prove to be incorrect.
I will list just a few scientific theories in vogue today that are false. They are literally science fictions.
The Big-Bang Theory
The 13.8 billion-year finite age of the universe
The 4.5 billion-year age of the Earth
The current civilization is the most advanced ever to exist on this planet.
My reasons for declaring that these theories are in fact false, stem from the discovery that current conventional beliefs about the nature of matter, energy, space, and time are flawed. This is revealed by the application of the primary calculus, the Calculus of Distinctions, to mass, energy and spacetime at the quantum scale, and by empirical evidence from quantum mechanics. Dr. Vernon Neppe and I have written about this in detail in a number of publications, and I have posted a number of essays about it in this blog site, so I will only summarize some of the reasons here, and note that they are in agreement with the historical resolution of the EPR paradox by Bell’s inequality and meticulous experimental data that show that matter, energy, space, and time are not what we think they are.
All four of the mainstream ideas listed above are fatally flawed because they are based on the erroneous idea that space and time form a uniform, passive background within which everything happens. Once you realize, as Albert Einstein did, that space and time have no existence of their own, and that observation and measurement of space-time dimensions are not uniform throughout the universe, but vary depending on relative mass and motion, the four ideas above fall like a house of cards.
There is ample evidence that 1) the big bang never happened; 2) the universe has always existed and will always exist in some form; 3) the Earth is much older than 4.5 billion years; and 4) civilization as an expression of the mental virtue of consciousness, has far exceeded its current level many times in the past. This evidence is all around us in many forms, and has been presented in a number of publications by Neppe and Close. I will summarize some of the evidence in my next post.
Sunday, January 20, 2019
“We can’t solve problems using the same kind of thinking that created them.”- Albert Einstein
A few Days ago, I posted a link to an article by two European scientists critiquing the math of TDVP, along with my response to their article, on this transcendental physics website. The two articles together amounted to more than 30 pages, and about 15,000 words, not including references. That’s a lot to read, so for those of you who might not necessarily want to invest so much time from your busy lives to read a detailed abstract discussion, here is a condensed version, focusing on the main criticisms leveled at TDVP math and physics in the article: the derivations of quantum equivalence units, the Cabibbo quark-mixing angle and gimmel, the non-physical aspect of reality. Their criticisms are presented here along with my responses, stated as briefly as possible.
Section 3, of the article, called “Critical Results and Analysis.” takes bits and pieces of these derivations out of context, and because of this, the authors missed the significance of the fact that a quantum calculus is needed for a quantized reality.
Sections 3 and 4 of the article contain a number of erroneous statements about TDVP, but I expect that the authors probably didn’t deliberately misrepresent the math of TDVP; it is more likely that they simply didn’t understand it. When a new paradigm arrives, those working within the old paradigm rarely recognize it, and often attack it viciously because they see it as threatening to their life’s work.
Derivation of Quantum Equivalence Units
The authors of the article criticized the derivation of the true quantum units of TDVP by referring to a table (their Figure 1) containing the masses of quarks determined statistically from Large Hadron Collider data. In the table, the masses of the up-quarks and down-quarks, determined from terabytes of LHC data, expressed in energy equivalence units (mega electron volts divided by the speed of light squared), are 2.3 ± 0.7 and 4.8 ± 0.5 Mev/c2 respectively, where the ± 0.07 and ± 0.05 are the Einstein-Bose statistical confidence limits.
The authors say: “… the mass values are assumed (by Close and Neppe) to be integers, apparently to be in line with quantum physics. Yet from the data in Figure 1, we can see the quark masses are not integer at all.”
This statement demonstrates that the authors, who say they have master’s degrees in physics, didn’t understand the simple naturalization of basic units. In addition, they didn’t even seem to realize that there actually are integers within the ranges of the LHC data for these quarks.
The LHC data in their Figure 1, is actually the exact same data I used to derive the quantum units for TDVP. The authors obviously missed the fact that, when normalized to the naturalized mass of the electron, the masses of up- and down-quarks have to be integers.
It is amazing that two scientists with master’s degrees in physics would not be familiar with the naturalization and normalization of data to obtain the integer values of masses in quantized units! Surely, having taken graduate courses in physics, they should at least be familiar with Planck units, which are derived in the same way, using naturalized universal constants.
Derivation of the Cabibbo Angle
The critics continue: “In his derivation, Close took a classical spinning object (which is incorrect for fermions because spin is quantified) and let it spin/rotate with the speed of light (which is incorrect) to generate the magnetic influence it should ‘spin’ faster than the speed of light. However, it is not mechanical spin; quantum spin is a quantum property. Close then calculates a ‘Lorentz contraction,’ which may look impressive to non-physicists because it happens to be about 1/9 of the experimental value of the Cabibbo angle…”
When I first read this, I said to myself, WOW! I could write a whole book on the errors and misunderstandings in this short paragraph alone, and I wrote a couple of pages in the response article, but I’ll boil it down to the bare bones here. Starting with the last error, I’ll work my way back to the first.
The error in the last sentence is the factor 1/9, which does not enter into the derivation at all. In the derivation of quantum-equivalence units, I determined that the angular velocity of a spinning electron stripped from a hydrogen atom would reach light speed before its diameter could shrink to zero. [I think it is relevant to note that theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who was held in very high regard by other physicists (including Albert Einstein), also discovered that the angular velocity of a spinning electron would reach light speed before its diameter shrinks to zero.]
Next, the real measure of rotation and inertia (erroneously called mass by mainstream particle physicists) is angular momentum.The spinning object analyzed was an electron, and the result is the same whether spin is called “classical” or a “quantum property.” The angular velocity at the minimum quantum volume is calculated to be 2.9974 x108 m/sec, a large fraction of the speed of light. Applying the Lorentz contraction equation, the contraction for each of eight quantized dimensional rotations of 90 degrees each, is 0.01810x90, or 1.629 degrees. One axis of rotation will be stationary in the observer’s inertial reference frame, so only 8 of the 9 dimensions in a 9-D reality are rotating with respect to the observer’s frame of reference. Consequently, for each rotation from one dimension to the next, 1.629 is multiplied by 8, not 9 as implied in the critique, yielding 13.032 degrees, which is in agreement with the Cabibbo angle derived from experimental data, which is 13.04±0.01 degrees.
The Derivation of Gimmel
The authors of the article are especially critical of the derivation of gimmel, the non-physical aspect of reality that is mathematically necessary for any stable atomic structure to exist. I addressed a number of their misrepresentations of this in my response article, but the root of their errors is revealed in the following statement: “Close calculated negative numbers for gimmel, but then continued with some number juggling (with some arbitrary integers for gimmel), until the whole thing seemed to work again, which is not an established, sound method in physics.”
The negative calculated values were simply part of the iterative computation used to establish the simplest possible integral solution of the equations representing the combinations of the quarks forming protons. None of the values used in determining the amount of gimmel in naturalized quantum-equivalence units in each quark were “arbitrary.” And certainly, any competent physicist should be familiar with the method of using best estimates as the starting point to iteratively zero in on the values that actually satisfy an equation. This method, called iterative computation, is used routinely and extensively in applied physics and engineering.
When the solution is simple, God is answering.—Albert Einstein25
The conclusion of my response article is summarized below:
The article by the two European scientists is primarily a defense of physicalist theory, not a serious evaluation of TDVP. It appears that the authors believe TDVP can’t be correct simply because it includes consciousness as an integral part of reality, conflicting with the dogma of mainstream physics. They misconstrue TDVP as dismissing QFT, which is a description of subatomic structure, while, in fact, TDVP explains the phenomena that Quantum field theory describes.
The critical article contains a number of errors not addressed in my response, but to be more complete, I briefly addressed a couple more:
the authors of the “critique” say: “… our critical evaluation, as described above, of their derivation of nine dimensions is a strong refutation …”
the authors of the “critique” say: “… our critical evaluation, as described above, of their derivation of nine dimensions is a strong refutation …”
Refutation requires a rigorous mathematical or logical disproof, not just comparison with the standard model. The article, riddled with errors and misrepresentations, presented no coherent mathematical or logical argument against TDVP at all, just opinions based on belief.
Finally, the authors express the opinion that “religion and science cannot mix. And they probably will never be reconciled.” The fact is, religion is not addressed in TDVP, but spiritual phenomena are, because they are part of the real world; and Close and Neppe are not alone in thinking that science should investigate them. There are a growing number of scientists who agree with us.