Drs Close, Stewart and O'Brien at a conference
TDVP STIRS SOME CONTROVERSY
A critique of the Triadic Dimensional Distinction Paradigm (TDVP) has been published in the fourth quarter 2018 issue of Telicom, the journal of the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry (ISPE), an organization in which both Dr. Vernon Neppe and I hold the highest earned rank. We have prepared separate responses: My response deals mainly with the math and physics, while Dr. Neppe’s response deals with the philosophy of science aspects of the criticisms. Our responses will be published in the next issue of Telicom.
I hope all who have read the critique, entitled “An Evaluation of TDVP” by physicists J.E.F. Kaan and Simon Olling Rebsdorf, will also read our responses. The “evaluation” contains more than forty misunderstandings, misinterpretations and erroneous statements, stemming mainly from the authors’ failure to understand the basics of TDVP physics and mathematical proofs.
Scientific paradigm shifts are often strongly denounced, maligned and ridiculed by mainstream scientists when they are first introduced. There are many reasons that this happens, including defense of established ideas, vested interest, intellectual arrogance, and pride. TDVP is no exception. In fact, because it introduces consciousness into the equations of physics and includes explanations of spiritual phenomena, it draws more criticism, anger and vitriol from mainstream scientists than most paradigm shifts, partially because many mainstream scientists are avowed atheists.
One of the claims that critics like Kaan and Rebsdorf make is that no “real” scientists have reviewed our work. Nothing could be further from the truth. The book “Reality Begins with Consciousness” (www.BrainVoyage.com) by Neppe and Close, and an increasing number of peer-reviewed papers, as well as journal articles and posts on this blog, have been well received by a growing number of scientists world-wide. Over 200 scientists have reviewed some or all of our work. Here are a few comments by some of them:
Dr. David Stewart, PhD, DNM, mathematical physicist, author of 17 books, the world’s leading authority on therapeutic essential oils, has read almost all of our work. He wrote:
“The Close-Neppe seminal work in creating TDVP constitutes one of the most profound and far-reaching discoveries and developments in the history of the sciences. …“When two polymaths make discoveries that are so groundbreaking they change the whole fabric of reality, it is clear that this is Nobel Prize material.”- “The authors many years of labor will be appreciated for centuries to come. …The exceptional metaparadigm of the Neppe-Close TDVP model certainly is worthy of the highest of prizes because it has redefined the spiritual within the scientific, and with another related Neppe-Close achievement LFAF (Lower Dimensional Feasibility Absent Falsification) has allowed the formal integration of spirituality into science by extending definitions of science to include what is feasible. These works are actually Nobel Prize worthy, and have been for a number of years. The only thing that could have been argued against a Nobel in 2016, was to say, ‘All these mathematical calculations fit. But are they, in fact, empirically based? Are they relevant? Or are they just as irrelevant as the various String Theories or Superstring Theories?’ We can now say quite definitively that ‘the truly remarkable and meaningful Neppe-Close TDVP work is empirically based’: The CERN data calculated using mass-energy equivalent figures are exactly the same derivations that appear for the Close-Neppe Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence (TRUE). This means that their TDVP data is real and based on mathematically sound empirical data, not just mathematical. In other words, combining the third substance ‘gimmel’ that Close demonstrated is absolutely necessary for our stable quantal, macroworld, and our cosmological existence, the mass/energy volumetric equivalence of subatomic particles -- namely electrons (1), protons (1836) and neutrons (1839)--exactly correspond with the normalized figures …This means that TRUE and gimmel is real. There is now no argument that these discoveries are relevant and empirically verifiable ….”
Israeli scientist, Dr. Adrian Klein, DD, PhD, a leading biophysicist, has critically examined almost all our work. He says TDVP is:
“The beginning of the ultimate disclosure about the nature of an all-encompassing reality…A monumental work forcing obsolete preconceptions to crumble.The 21st Century's revolutionary paradigm shift …(Neppe and Close) have unique moral strength to confront destabilizing adversities …to underpin this universal truth with physical-mathematical rigor and proofs.…Demolishing by these proofs the last crutches of materialistic tenets, they bring a massive contribution to the advancement of Real Science… (TDVP) has laid a foundation for all future science to develop. The world of scientific understanding, in all fields, has been permanently changed, and set in a new direction. The future of all mankind is forever brighter because of what they have done.… they will both be awarded … a Nobel Prize in Physics (or) equivalent Mathematics Fields Medal. …The Neppe-Close contributions will change mankind's future. A seismic shift in understanding the understanding process itself! …The 21st Century's revolutionary paradigm shift.
Indian atomic physicist Surendra Pokharna, PhD says:
“These two scientists [Close and Neppe] were unanimously equal recipients of the rarely awarded worldwide highly respected, prestigious interdisciplinary, open-to-all prize, the 2016 Whiting Memorial Award from the…ISPE for TDVP…an earthshaking paradigm shift. () Their extraordinarily groundbreaking TDVP paradigm which they jointly have painstakingly developed over ten years. stands as the most profound scientific work of this century. TDVP deserves a Nobel Prize in Physics (and) involves not just one breakthrough, but constitutes many revolutionary advances. [They have proved] we cannot have any particle, tiny or macroscopic or in our astronomical reality, without what is called ‘gimmel’— Neppe, Close and I and others regard gimmel as consciousness, or its vehicle as there is simply no other explanation … Neppe and Close have provided the data to solve complex questions by TDVP. Effectively, once one introduces extra dimensions, infinite continuity which embeds the 9 finite quantized dimensions, and consciousness/gimmel—“the God Matrix”— with math proofs plus unified reality as key points, the solutions for all finite reality become easier. This is why their TDVP model—unlike any other scientific model based on the Theory of Everything (TOE) criteria analysis—works, and why TDVP so closely reflects and encompasses the spiritual aspects.”
Dr. Alan Hugenot DSc, a uniquely qualified physicist and parapsychological researcher wrote:
“After having first read their papers my initial personal reaction was ‘This deserves a Nobel prize’! Later, I discovered that these two polymaths belong to the same high intellect societies in which I held personal membership, and in my opinion, they appear to be amongst the most creative thinkers currently advancing science in our world today.” … Ultimately, these two creative genius scientists have changed the world. …in order to look at the mathematics, Neppe and Close have recognized that there needs to be volume in everything. And if something is volumetric, this means it is 3-dimensional; it effectively can be calculated mathematically in terms of cubes. This leads to a whole string of Diophantine equations and what calculations do and do not fit within our empirical reality… the far-reaching implications of the TDVP groundbreaking paradigm……“The Neppe-Close contributions …might take 50 years… to register with the myopic main-stream scientific establishment, which continues to ignore the clear implications of the delayed choice double-slit experiment, comfortable in their classical Newtonian perspectives. So large is this sea-change in science, because this relates to 3s-1t (as well as the ‘hidden’ additional dimensions) that it will modify our understanding of Relativity theory. Relativity is not wrong; but there has to be extensions of this theory beyond our currently limited standard model…even Planck’s quantum has been modified by Neppe-Close.…this difference is profound.”
The well-known author, Dr. Larry Dossey MD, winner of numerous awards, Chief Editor of Explore, said:
“…an enormous contribution whose significance may surpass, even the profound implications of TDVP for cosmology and physics…Neppe and Close have reversed the dismal conclusions of materialistic science toward consciousness, and have made the concept of immortality and the survival of bodily death scientifically respectable…The main contribution of Neppe and Close has been made, the deed is done. This may make all the difference in humanity’s psychospiritual equipoise. …It is difficult to imagine a greater contribution.”
Dr. Leonard Horowitz, award-winning writer, film-maker, polymath, and author of twenty-one books wrote:
“Math doesn’t lie. Nor does Neppe and Close misrepresent or omit substantive facts explaining reality in their thesis. … Geniuses Neppe and Close apply honest principles from their TDVP model that mathematically proves the existence and operation of the ‘Higher Intelligence’ administering precognition (or intuition). … (They) go further than anyone else in addressing the numerous aspects …neglected by their scientific predecessors… ”
Dr. Gary E. Schwartz, PhD, Professor of psychology, medicine, neurology, psychiatry, and surgery, University of Arizona, Tucson, wrote:
“Dear Ed and Vernon, First, it was wonderful hearing Ed present at the ASCI meetings. … I found myself understanding, appreciating, and celebrating what the two of you have been doing. In fact, as I look over the 40 years of my attending scientific meetings, Ed's presentation is among THE MOST MEMORABLE AND MEANINGFUL of my entire academic (and personal) life”.
Many more PhD professors and researchers have responded briefly to our book Reality Begins with Consciousness (RBC) as follows:
, the world’s leading parapsychological researcher:Close and Neppe’s book,
and the leading exponent of healing;
And, there are many more.
We are currently corresponding with a number of PhD professionals interested in the applications and implications of TDVP and the natural quantum units of the calculus of dimensional distinctions. I have had a number of informal discussions with Mr. Kaan over a period of several years, but I can’t say that they were very productive, because his comments were generally negative, with no in-depth discussion of the concepts behind TDVP; and I have had no previous discussions with Mr. Rebsdorf.
As a preview of the Telicom articles pro-and-con TDVP, here are some brief excerpts from Kaan and Rebsdorf’s article, with excerpts from my reply. In their Summary and Conclusions, oddly placed at the beginning of the article instead of the end, they say:
“TDVP claims to have been able to improve on the Standard Model of Particle Physics (SMPP). Yet from our analysis, such “improvements” do not appear scientifically correct, i.e., they have not been derived with proper physics methods. In addition, there are no concrete, quantitative, accurate measurements/experiments to support TDVP’s claims.”
Farther along in the article, they expand several times on the claim that our methods are not “proper physics methods”. Here is one example:
“Close calculated negative numbers for gimmel, but then continued with some number juggling (with arbitrary integers for gimmel), until the whole thing seemed to work again, which is not an established sound method in physics.”
My response, in part:
“The negative calculated values were simply part of the iterative computation used to establish the minimum possible integral solution. None of the values used …were “arbitrary”. And any experimental or theoretical 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.” And I gave a reference supporting my answer.
Concerning their statement “there are no concrete, quantitative, accurate measurements/experiments to support TDVP’s claims” I responded with:
“In fact, we have checked upwards of fifty specific instances to see if TDVP actually works for prior existing experiments, and it does.”
The most important concept that K&R failed to grasp, is the need for a calculus with measurement units that are derived from the natural quanta of the real world. This failure is clear in their reference to Figure 1, on page 147 of their article:
“… the mass values are assumed 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. The same will, of course, be found in any text on this topic.”
Excerpts from my answer:
“ …these data for quarks (in their figure), along with the mass of the electron, are the actual data used in the derivation of natural quantum units in the TDVP calculations. Quark masses are naturalized to the mass of the electron, the most accurately known quantum mass. The way they are naturalized is straight-forward and should be understood by any physicist or mathematician.”
“ The derivation of natural quantum units for TDVP has been published several times, including in Reality Begins with Consciousness and in several peer-reviewed papers in addition to my Transcendental Physics blog — http://www.erclosetphysics.com.” (And, I gave references.)
“Any quantum physicist should be familiar with the conversion of SI units to natural units. and physicists should at least be familiar with naturalized Planck units. They shouldn’t have to be told why that, even though mass is quantized, the values in Figure 1 are not integers. They are not integers because the units of measurement being used are not naturalized quantum equivalence units.”
Why did two intelligent men (they are members of ISPE) with Masters degrees in physics make such obvious blunders? It appears that they did not actually try to understand TDVP because they were focused on defending the standard model.
As I say in my conclusions, at the end of my response article:
“It appears that the authors believe TDVP can’t be correct, because it includes consciousness as an integral part of reality, conflicting with the dogma of mainstream physics”.
After the responses are published in Telicom, I will post more.