Thursday, December 31, 2015



We have demonstrated that a 9-dimensional model is mathematically justified, and we have, inter alia:
·       explained intrinsic spin of fermions 
·       derived the equivalent of a spinning Cabibbo mixing angle 24-26 50 ;
·       replicated this derivation by a thought experiment 76;
·       demonstrated the need for 9-D in intrinsic angular momentum and electron intrinsic spin 28 50
·       explained the disappearing electron cloud 95 and we have demonstrated that
·       either the electron shape is symmetrical but non-spherical, or the speed of light may be exceeded in extra dimensions without detection in 3S-1t 70
A finite quantized 9-dimensional spin model explains previously unexplained phenomena, and reveals the existence of a third form of the substance of reality, (gimmel) creating and sustaining structural stability in an otherwise chaotic decaying universe. And a finite quantized 9-dimensional spin model requires triadic rotational equivalence units (TRUE) to describe it with mathematical and geometric consistency.
A 9D-spin model is mathematically consistent with the existence of the three finite, quantified dimensions of space, measured in integers, three dimensions of time, measurable in imaginary numbers, and three additional, subtly all-encompassing dimensions containing the other dimensional domains and their contents of mass and energy, but also containing the third form of content, gimmel, likely linked significantly with consciousness, which can be represented quantitatively by the mathematical inclusiveness of complex numbers. A further encompassing level of hyper-dimensionality is a discrete, transfinite domain which incorporates all nine dimensions and their contents.
The conveyance equation used to describe the combination of elementary particles observed in 3S-1t naturally consists of linear measurement integers cubed because the volumes of three-dimensional objects are described mathematically and geometrically as shape factors times the linear measures of the objects cubed. Note that, at least in theory, higher dimensional conveyance equations (m > 3) can be used to describe hyper-dimensional phenomena mathematically. The meta-mathematical calculus of distinctions has been designed by Close to handle the logical structure of multi-dimensional reality.


In this TRUE unit analysis of Hydrogen and its isotopes, we can identify the four forces that affect the stability of structures composed of protons, neutrons and electrons, holding together the entities that make up the physical universe. We postulate that they are, in order of strength:
·       Dimensionometric tethering involves the space-like inclusion of each n-dimensional domain within the next higher (n + 1) dimensional domain, effectively linking ג (gimmel) with the mass/energy of subatomic particles. This linkage ensures the stability and symmetry of elementary particles, atoms and molecules in 3S-1t through the powerful binding forces of 9-dimensional rotation.
·       the attractive forces of electrical charge,
·       magnetism and
·       gravity.
The first of these four mechanisms of symmetric stability is the organizing force of the transfinite substrate, mediated mathematically and dimensionometrically by the conveyance equation to produce ordropy (formerly called extropy or negative entropy). The last three are products of the resistance to the ordropy of 9D-spin and the dissipative force of universal expansion.
With regard to organizing tethering, structures with more ג units are more strongly connected with the nine-dimensional structure of the substrate of reality. Moreover, if the collection of elementary particles cannot combine to form a symmetric structure in accordance with the FLT restriction and an integer solution of the Conveyance Equation, the collection of particles will not stay together long, even if attracted together by gravity, magnetism and opposite charge to become electrically neutral. The stronger forces of rotational expansion and the impacts of external forces will cause such structures to spiral and fly apart.

It may seem odd that the ratio of ג units to mass/energy units for the electron in these three atomic structures is so much greater than for the other elementary particles. But, as we revealed above, these numbers are not arbitrary. Instead, they are dictated by the quantum nature of our ostensible experiential 3S-1t reality, and the integer solutions of the Diophantine equations of the Conveyance Expression.
In earlier publications, we have integrated units of ג, mass and energy through application of the principles of the Special Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, showing that they are equivalent in TRUE units. Thus, it should be expected that the volume the electron occupies in each orbital shell contributes more to the number of TRUE units for the electron in contrast with the other particles occupying less volumetric equivalence.
Note that atomic and sub-atomic structures are spinning like vortical solitions connecting the dimensional domains. The stability of an atom is less than that of electrons, protons and neutrons. The stability of an atom depends upon whether its components can combine volumetrically, the attraction of the opposite electric charges of spinning electrons and protons, nuclear symmetric stability made possible by the existence of gimmel, and the symmetry created by their high rate of rotation, or vortical spin.
It is, en passant, interesting that electrons are relatively far removed from the atomic nucleus. Conventional particle physics has always argued that weak electromagnetic forces hold the electron together, but this work suggests that with 9-D spin and far greater gimmel, that the overriding component may well be the role of the proportion of gimmel linked with the physical mass-energy components of electrons in our 9-D reality. This would make much more sense and in fact that might be what so-called “weak forces” are all about. We just need to understand that particle reality is not just 3S-1t but a 9 dimensional spinning reality. The impact of the ג units in 3S-1t observations reflects the logic of the (hypothesized) conscious substrate, so thinking of ג as units of that third form of the substance of reality, including consciousness, working through the equations of the Conveyance Expression is justifiable, and comparing the ratio of ג units to mass/energy units for elementary particles, elements, molecules and compounds provides a relative measure of ostensible consciousness in all physical structures.
Finally, including protons, neutrons and electrons as building blocks, and using the models of H1 (Protium) and heavy hydrogen with a neutron (deuterium) H2, the entire periodic table of elements can be calculated with their physical and chemical characteristics significantly explained in terms of their structure in TRUE units.
In the conventional description of the combining of elements and molecules to form new entities, two basic types of bonding are identified: covalent and ionic. Covalent bonding is also described as atoms sharing outer shell (valence) electrons. Ionic bonding occurs when ions of opposite electrical charge, are drawn together. An atom is called an ion when it has a different number of electrons than protons, and an atom with more electrons than protons is called a negative ion (anion), and with fewer, it is called a positive ion (cation). These two types of bonding seem simple enough, but it appears that there are more complex compound types of bonding that require additional descriptions and visual representations: There is polar covalent bonding, non-polar and hybrid bonding. There are Hydrogen bonds, metallic bonds, and Van der Waals bonds. We will not spend time discussing all of the types of bonding described in the current paradigm here, because TRUE unit analysis provides us with an almost entirely different way of understanding how particles combine, but we should be aware that these variations will impact potentially on the analysis of different compounds.
Looking at the TRUE-unit structure of quarks, Hydrogen, Deuterium and Tritium, we see that the way the sub-atomic components are combined determines the symmetry and stability of the resulting compound entity. When three elementary particles combine, like the three quarks of a proton or neutron, with the necessary units of ג, to form integral TRUE unit solutions, they are combined volumetrically, forming a new symmetrically stable structure. This type of combination is the most stable. There are no electrons to be stripped off and such a compound particle can only be broken apart under extreme conditions, like the extreme heat and pressure in the heart of a star, or the ultra-high-energy collisions of a particle collider.
In H1, all of the TRUE units of the sub-atomic particles, the electron and proton, with their quarks, have combined and re-organized to form a new symmetric structure. Thanks to the stabilizing ג units they have combined volumetrically to form a symmetrically stable and electrically neutral entity, the Hydrogen atom. So instead of being inherently unstable, as it would be if only composed of one electron and one proton, with the necessary units of ג, the Hydrogen atom is very stable. However, because it has only one electron in its outer shell, which has room for two electrons, it is not nearly as stable as the proton and neutron bonding of quarks. H2 is volumetrically stable, but has a lower ג-to-mass/energy ratio than H1, making it still less stable. H3 could not combine volumetrically because it is composed of four sub-atomic entities, not three (FLT again) so it is asymmetric and even less stable, held together only by the attraction of equal and opposite electrical charge. This is an example of an atom with unequal numbers of protons and neutrons and every one of these is less stable than those with equal protons, neutrons and electrons: When we analyze that subset, these are the potential atoms that are associated with either:
1.    life, or
2.    with frequent occurrence in the cosmos, such as inert gases like Helium and Neon 101. However, in this instance, we propose that the absence of outer shells may make them very stable 12, but produces an almost complete inability to combine precluding their being life elements 1
Table 15A-He3: Helium Atom with P+ = 24 and N0 = 38
HELIUM: Number of Valence Electrons = - 2 + 2 = 0 (Inert)
Total TRUE Units
- 6
+ 6

Using TRUE-unit analysis, we can investigate every possible combination of H1 atoms and neutrons and determine which combinations are the most stable. After Tritium, the next stable combination of TRUE units, Helium, involves 336 TRUE units.
Why is this not called “quadrium”, a third isotope of Hydrogen? It is a new element because it has two electrons filling its outer (and only) shell, so that it is not easily attached to other atoms.
Importantly we’re already seeing a pattern: a multiple of 108 cubed for the total volumetric equivalent of Helium. We can hypothesize that empirically all stable atoms of life and inert gases that are distributed in the 3S-1t cosmos, should be a multiple of the 108 cubed: 108 is 3 cubed (=27), reflecting 3D volume, multiplied by four (=two squared), reflecting the 2D nature of the planes of rotation.
We hypothesize first that what we know empirically are the elements of life namely oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, magnesium and calcium should show specific life properties including symmetry, stability and high gimmel to TRUE ratio.
Furthermore, we could propose that the noble, inert gases Helium and Neon because of their abundance should show the same stability features in terms of a similar high gimmel to TRUE ratio. But we could not initially predict this until the analyses in this paper.
Of course, we know that hydrogen should have extraordinary symmetry and stability and would expect it to have the most gimmel because it is far the most abundant element in the cosmos plus a fundamental life-sustaining element.
We would expect that some surprises may occur in our analyses. Silicon turns out to be life-sustaining: This is not predicted but after analysis making perfect sense. And we know that Phosphorus, Sodium and Chlorine are very much involved in life processes but not as fundamentally so as the elements above. So we were curious as to their gimmel and valence calculations.
These analyses are below. In this paper, we will find that the empirical analysis confirms this hypothesis which theoretically makes sense as well based on our hypothesis that mathematics does not occur just for calculation but as an intimate and integral (pun deliberate!) part of life and cosmological existence. Moreover, we hypothesize that when the cube root of the Volumetric equivalence score is not an integer, such atoms, molecules and compounds are less stable and less symmetrical (we know that as in these chemicals, neutrons ≠ protons so they cannot be symmetrical).
New elements arise when a unique new combination of TRUE units, constructed using multiples of the basic building blocks of electrons, protons and neutrons is formed. The next element is the combination of the inert atom, Helium, with the asymmetric atom, H3 to form Lithium.
Table 15B LITHIUM, Valence Electrons = 3 - 2 = 1
Total TRUE Units
- 9
+ 9
(330. 32…)3 *

Since the total volume is not an integer cubed, Lithium, like Tritium, is volumetrically asymmetric. It has a stronger electrical bond than H3 and more ג units connecting it with the multi-dimensional substrate for added stability, but it is less stable because it is asymmetric. Theoretically, Lithium should crave an atom like Hydrogen 1. This would produce a stable bonding Lithium hydride if the bonding were covalent. However, such bonding is ionic, not directly mechanically related to spin, and therefore this is why we do not see much lithium hydride in the cosmos and as a useful compound in living organisms.
Therefore, analyses of molecules involve TRUE stability tendencies but these must be calculated anew applying each TRUE calculations for each chemical radical (like –OH, or H+). These compounds must exhibit stability to remain viable for long periods and this stability can be calculated based on their gimmel contents and shells along with their chemical bonding. Molecules exhibit different levels of stability just as there are with the elements themselves.

Stability based on TRUE units:

Clearly there are different levels of stability and symmetry for TRUE unit analyses.
Table 15C: Degrees of stability of atoms and molecules using TRUE analyses
Ratio of Gimmel to TRUE
Chemical relevance
Natural substances
Generic for stability
High ratio
Elements, molecules, compounds
Extra gimmel/daled
Hydrogen very high; high ratio
No neutron
Nitrogen, oxygen,
S, P, Ca, Ma, Si, water
Elements and life-supporting

Readily combine with each other
Helium, neon
Inert gases
High ratio
Atoms with full outer shells.
Dynamically Stable = Life permostable
RNA, DNA, Organic compounds
Vehicles of Life, Solitions
High ratio
Naturally regenerative
/ existent permostable.
Metals and
metallic compounds
Exist on earth naturally
Inconsistent but low ratio
P=E elements

Naturally Unstable
Naturally occurring Isotopes
Low ratio
P=E or P≠E
Artificially Unstable
Higgs boson, muons,
Neutrino, antimatter
Collider induced, Interactive
extremely low
Interaction with particles produces little or no chemical change


We cannot just have a dichotomy of “stable” / “unstable” that we use in colloquial English. Current terminology such as stable and unstable is insufficient to portray differences in the molecules, atoms and subatomic particles that make up our cosmos. The stability levels vary:
We describe decreasing hierarchies of stability: Hydrostable, Superstable, Hyperstable, Protostable, Naturally unstable and Artificially unstable.

Hydrostable refers to elements with more gimmel/ daled instead of a neutron. This is unique for Hydrogen as the most prevalent element in the cosmos and the most reactive one in the elements of life. It does not have a neutron and instead has more “gimmel” equivalent. But we don’t know that this is the same “gimmel” so we call it “daled”. This is needed for its properties and we contrast that with helium.
We introduce the concept of “superstability” 1 pertinent for elements of life: Superstable occurs where N=P=E readily combine life elements (e.g. N , O , S, Ca, Mg, Si). Hyperstable is where N=P=E but inert (e.g. He, Ne): “hyperstability” is for the inert gases with equal protons and neutrons like He, Ne) and complete electron shells.

Permostable refers to natural elements on earth where N≠P and the elements are not integral. There are in between elements such as sodium and magnesium, chlorine and iodine are reactive but do not fit the equal N, E, P requirement and do not exhibit any integral cubes. They exhibit lesser stability and are stable. But they can become more stable as compounds.

“Permostable” (permanent stable) is for those elements and chemicals that are persistent not transient: But these have degrees of permostability and life reactivity so the one would be “life permostable” like sodium, and the other does not naturally interact with life though may sometimes be trace elements or used for medication (“existent permostable”). One major difference would be dependent on proportion of gimmel to TRUE.

Dynamically stable is for critical but complex compounds (e.g. DNA, RNA, organic compounds).
Finally, there is “unstable” like isotopes for those that are ephemeral, impermanent, momentary or fleeting such as H3, but which still exists naturally. Then there are the artificial unstable groups such as those produced only in collider data like the Higgs boson. (Table 15C stability)
Naturally unstable: By contrast, elements that are ephemeral and volatile are asymmetric and unstable because their TRUE values are not integral: They are natural isotopes occurring in low ratio. We must distinguish from Artificially unstable: relates to particles developed artificially in colliders (e.g. Higgs Boson, neutrinos, muons) from LHC data.