Tuesday, April 25, 2017


A Triad of Presentations
©Edward R. Close, April, 2017
As I prepare power points and discussions for presentations this summer, I’d like to pause to reminisce a little about some of the circumstances of my life that led up to the development of the Neppe-Close Triadic Dimensional Distinction Vortical Paradigm (TDVP), as a model of reality that is appropriate for modeling relativity and quantum physics, cosmology, and physical, mental and spiritual development.

From 1969 until 1974, with a background in mathematics and physics, I was one of the seven charter members of the US Department of Interior Systems Analysis Group in Arlington Virginia, a suburb of Washington, D.C. I was privileged to have the opportunity to work with several distinguished mathematicians with degrees from Harvard, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, and other leading Universities. At that time, I was working on my PhD at Johns Hopkins.

Under the direction of Dr. Nicholas Matalas, a Harvard PhD and world leader in probability theory, we constructed mathematical models of environmental systems. Our projects included modeling storm cell development, coastal geomorphology, the relation of sunspot activity to weather patterns, and water resources management models, among other things.

One of the mathematicians I had the privilege of working with was Benoit Mandelbrot, a soft-spoken, friendly man. At the time, he was working on his later-to-become-famous paper on fractals. As a member of the Systems Analysis Group, I helped peer-review his ground-breaking paper. More importantly, I was able to discuss fractals and other interesting mathematical concepts with him when he visited our lab in Arlington. I mention this because the use of fractals, which became a popular art form, in mathematical modeling, is analogous to the use of the Rubik’s cube to model reality.

The Rubik’s cube, while considered to be a toy, or at best a frustrating puzzle by most, is uniquely designed to model the dimensionality of reality. It has nine orthogonal planes of rotating cubes, handy for simulating the nine dimensions of the TDVP model of the universe. It has three horizontal layers that can represent the body, mind and spiritual characteristics of conscious beings, and it can equally well represent quarks, atoms and molecules, or planets, solar systems and galaxies.

Stay tuned for more detail.

Monday, April 24, 2017


In 1974, a young Professor of architecture in Budapest, Hungary named Erno Rubik created an object that was not supposed to be possible. His solid cube twisted and turned - and still it did not break or fall apart. With colorful stickers on its sides, the Cube got scrambled and thus emerged the first “Rubik’s Cube”. It took well over a month for Erno to work out the solution to his puzzle. As a teacher, Erno was always looking for new, more exciting ways to present information, so he used the Cube’s first model to help him explain to his students about spatial relationships. 

Erno has always thought of the Cube primarily as an object of art, a mobile sculpture symbolizing stark contrasts of the human condition: bewildering problems and triumphant intelligence; simplicity and complexity; stability and dynamism; order and chaos. For this magic object to become the most popular toy in history a few chance meetings had to take
place The first Magic Cubes  As with many of the world’s greatest inventions it did not have an easy birth. After presenting his prototype to his students and friends Erno began to realize the potential of his cube. The next step was to get it manufactured. The first cubes were made and distributed in Hungary by Politechnika. These early Cubes, marketed as “Magic Cubes” (or “Buvos Kocka”), were twice the weight of the ones available later. In the 70’s Hungary was part of the Communist regime behind the Iron Curtain, and any imports or exports where tightly controlled. 

How was Erno’s invention, that had become a major success in Hungary, going to make it into the hands of every child of the 80’s? The first step in the Rubik’s Cube’s battle to worldwide recognition was to get out of Hungary. This was accomplished partly by the enchanted mathematicians who took the Cubes to international conferences and partly by an expat Hungarian entrepreneur who took the cube to the Nuremberg Toy Fair in 1979. It was at there that Tom Kremer, a toy specialist, agreed to sell it to the rest of the world. Tom’s unrelenting belief in the Cube finally resulted in the Ideal Toy Company taking on distribution of the “Magic Cube”. Ideal Toy’s executives thought that the name had overtones of witchcraft and after going through several possibilities the name: “Rubik’s Cube” was decided on, and the icon was born. In the time since its international launch in 1980 an estimated 350 million Rubik’s Cubes have been sold. 

Approximately one in seven people alive have played with a Rubik’s Cube. This little six color cube has gone on to represent a decade. It has started art movements (Rubik Cubism); pop videos, Hollywood movies and even had its own TV show; it has come to represent both genius and confusion; it has birthed a sport (Speed cubing); and it has even been into space. The beauty of the Rubik’s Cube is that when you look at a scrambled one, you know exactly what you need to do without instruction. Yet without instruction it is almost impossible to solve, making it one of the most infuriating and engaging inventions ever conceived.

I solved the Rubik's Cube during the month of  Ramadan  in Yanbu, Saudi Arabia in 1981, only one year after it became available in the West. In my upcoming lectures in California and Missouri I will be using the cube to model the cosmos, quantum physics and spiritual evolution. 

Saturday, April 22, 2017


Introducing a Trilogy of Discussions about TDVP*
©Edward R. Close, April 22, 2017


It turns out that the Rubik’s Cube is a perfect geometric model of nine-dimensional reality at the cosmological, quantum and consciousness scales! It has nine planes of rotation representing the nine dimensions of finite reality. Three principles are involved:
1. The Principle of Symbolic Representation
2. The Principle of Symmetric Resonance
3. The Principle of Synchronous Relativity

All phenomena are nothing more than symbolic representations of Reality that occur in three finite forms, describable with three symbolic variables:

1. Variables of Extent: three sets of three dimensions
2. Variables of Content: mass, energy and consciousness
3. Variables of Intent or meaningful information: existential, conceptual and imaginary

There are three forms of symmetric resonance:

1. Mass: elementary particles, atomic elements and the universe
2. Energy: photonic, electric and magnetic
3. Consciousness: individual, group and cosmic

The nine finite dimensions are embedded in an infinite substrate of pure consciousness. This allows all phenomena to resonate, maintaining a perfect symmetric balance as a whole. Symbolic representation of the interaction of the three forms of symmetric resonance in TDVP invokes the Principle of Synchronous Relativity.

The symmetric resonance of Reality as a whole requires synchronous interaction between all phenomena: Asymmetries present in any observational distinction drawn by an individualized conscious entity in less than nine-dimensions is immediately balanced by complementary asymmetries in other dimensions of the holistic nine-finite-dimensional domain. The manifestation of Reality observed by an individualized conscious entity is thus incomplete and relative to the dimensional framework available to that individual.

There are three levels of synchronous relativity:

1. Physical
2. Mental
3. Spiritual

The mathematical logic of the holistic synchronous nature of Reality requires that time and consciousness, like space, are three-dimensional. The nine orthogonal planes of the Rubik’s cube provide appropriate symbolic representations of the nine dimensions of cosmic reality, quantum reality and spiritual reality. During the year (2017) I plan to present a series of lectures and workshops using Rubik’s cubes to describe cosmic, quantum and spiritual reality. I will keep you informed.

 *The Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm, the Neppe-Close paradigm shift. See www.BrainVoyage.com.

Monday, April 17, 2017



Jacqui and I have been trying to reduce our travel schedule for several years, but we are still open to attending and speaking at conferences on science and spirituality and at Young Living events, if our time and expenses are covered.

For events outside the Continental US, Jacqui will not be able to accompany me.

If our individual schedules and commitments allow, my research partner, Dr. Vernon Neppe, MD, PhD, and I may be available to speak and conduct day-long workshops, if in addition to reasonable professional fees, all expenses are covered.

Commitments I have scheduled so far in 2017 are as follows:

April 27-30: Atlanta, GA - Not open to the public

The month of May: I will be finishing a number of research projects, environmental consulting projects, and preparing power-point presentations for June and July conferences.

June 7-11: Chapel Hill NC - Open to the public

June 21-25: Sunrise Center, Corte Madera, CA – Open to the public

July 21-23: St Louis, MO - CARE Summit, Members only

For more information about the open conferences and to request our participation in events you may have scheduled, call 573-332-1114. If no answer, please leave a message and I will return your call. 

Edward R. Close April 17, 2017

Wednesday, April 5, 2017


I am truly blessed to have a wonderful wife who believes in me, who, amazingly, reads everything I write, and does not hesitate to criticize it. This is a blessing because she is very intelligent, even though not formally trained in mathematics and physics. Because of this, she always has a wonderful insight into what intelligent non-scientist readers may think of a post or article. When she tells me there is a problem, I listen, and if I can’t convince her she’s wrong, I try to make the appropriate changes and the post or article is always improved.

She said my last post about science and pseudoscience sounded like a complaint, like “sour grapes” because the consciousness-based paradigm shift Dr. Vernon Neppe and I are putting forth has not been unanimously accepted with open arms by mainstream science. That really wasn’t my intent. I thought I was just stating the facts around the difficulties scientists within the academic establishment have when it comes to new ideas outside the prevailing paradigm, and why this strong resistance to such ideas is endemic, and not likely to change very quickly. As Max Planck once said: “Science progresses from funeral to funeral.”

I have no doubt that the basic ideas of TDVP will eventually be accepted and become mainstream science; because they are based on valid experimental data and mathematical theorems that have been proved, and they are further validated by explaining a number of things that cannot explained in the current paradigm. And I believe it is becoming increasingly clear that science must break out of the limitations of the physical senses in four-dimensional space time to advance beyond the dead end of materialism.

Of course, Dr. Neppe and I would enjoy seeing our vision of a consciousness-based paradigm become the accepted science during our lifetimes, but we often joke that we will have to reincarnate 50 or 75 years in the future to see it happen. In the meantime, we are publishing books and papers demonstrating the paradigm shift brought about by putting consciousness into the equations of science, with explanations of deep truths about quantum reality, including the triadic symmetry of quark combinations forming the basic building blocks of reality, intrinsic spin, the origin of mass, dark matter and dark energy, etc. By far the most important discovery of this paradigm shift is the existence of gimmel, the third form of reality, a form that is non-physical, but intrinsically related to space-time, mass and energy in a mathematically definable way.

I am increasingly of the attitude that it doesn’t matter if or when my ideas are accepted. I have done my part in this life by presenting the ideas, and documenting the concepts, explanations and discoveries. It is up to the natural progression of things, God, if you will, what happens next, but as the old saying has it: the truth will out. Vernon and I will continue breaking the new ground of gimmel, with TRUE units and the Calculus of Distinctions, working and writing, because the ground is so fertile. We have new revelations almost daily. 

Eventually, the boundaries of the old materialistically biased paradigm will dissolve, leaving as residue the valid findings that are complete within that paradigm, but do not conflict with the new consciousness-based paradigm. Such residue will be absorbed into the new paradigm and real research can then move forward into the vast realm of human experience beyond the tip of the iceberg of reality that we think of as the physical universe. 

A point will come in the future, when people will say: How could we ever have imagined that reality could be so limited?  Every truly conscious being knows in the depths of the soul that the physical senses are designed as filters and reduction valves obscuring most of reality. The vast future of consciousness exploration is out there. We have only scratched the surface by putting consciousness into the equations of science! Shake off your slumber, Science, break out of the cage of materialism and explore the real world of spiritual unfoldment, of which the physical universe, vast as it seems, is a mere shadowy reflection.

Edward R. Close April 5th, 2017

Tuesday, April 4, 2017


People who call themselves scientists, especially “mainstream” scientists working within the framework of today’s modern academic institutions, will generally agree that the purpose of science is to study and investigate available knowledge and data, and carry out increasingly refined and sophisticated experiments in order to better understand the true nature of reality. Most of them are honest men and women striving to work within the boundaries of their personal abilities, learned skills, the restrictions of academic administrations, the consensus of the scientific community, and human society, and in the process, make a living for their families and/or themselves. With all these restrictions and boundaries, it is easy to lose sight of the lofty goal of trying to discover the true nature of reality.

Imagine that you are a professor in a major university, tenured or working toward tenure. Because you are part of an institution of higher learning, you will have many demands on your time and energy, demands like classroom teaching schedules and student-advisor responsibilities, departmental administrative duties, research planning and scheduling, pressures to publish your work, and peer-review the works of colleagues, not to mention the non-work-related responsibilities and demands of life in general. You are expected to know everything there is to know about your area of specialization, and as an expert in your field, you receive numerous unsolicited manuscripts and half-baked ideas every day from would-be scientists and self-educated geniuses. And this stream of unsolicited material begging for your review and blessing, has increased exponentially over the years with easy public access to the internet and ever more powerful personal computers available to anyone with some free time and a few ideas. Most mainstream professors respond to queries and ideas from outside the academic community with form letters that say something like: “Your first egregious error is on page 4.” 

The number of PhDs awarded each year in the US has increased from about 8,000 in 1955, to an estimated 60,000 per year today. This huge increase is primarily due to increased opportunity, which is a good thing. But this rapid increase, combined with departmental specialization and social engineering (not necessarily good things in my opinion) has also resulted in a lower average intelligence and lesser ability to see the big picture among college and university professors. These pressures, limitations and trends have made it more and more difficult for most academic professionals to concern themselves with the lofty goal of understanding the true nature of reality, because their main concerns are constrained, delineated and defined by their institution, not their profession. Because of these factors, mainstream scientists spend more time defending their turf than expanding it. This why there has been no mainstream paradigm shift since relativity and quantum mechanics in the first third of the last century.

What is pseudoscience? The dictionary says pseudoscience is a collection of beliefs and practices mistakenly regarded as being based on the scientific method. And the scientific method is defined as a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.

Now, suppose a new idea comes along, an idea that does not fit into the current paradigm. The mainstream scientist who has worked his entire academic and professional life within the paradigm may not have the time, energy, or inclination to even consider it. He is likely to reject it as pseudoscience and may even become upset and call the purveyor of the idea names because, if the idea is correct, it will mean that much of his life’s work will be overturned. If it then becomes accepted because it “corrects and integrates previous knowledge”, who is the pseudo scientist? Has such a thing ever happened? Yes, it happens every time there has been a real breakthrough to a new scientific paradigm. There a number of legendary examples: Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Einstein …

The most important point here, however, is not the idea that there are scientists and pseudoscientists, and never the twain shall meet. The point is that the idea that science is a fixed body of fact ever growing in its relevance and correspondence to the true nature of reality is the real pseudoscience. And this pseudoscience is becoming more and more entrenched in modern mainstream science because of the trends noted above. I predict that much of today’s Standard Model of particle physics is going to become tomorrow’s pseudoscience.