Friday, November 29, 2019


© Edward R Close 2019

“…at length, the truth will out.” – Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice.
Dear Reader, I want to ask you to use your imagination. Please imagine that Pierre de Fermat, a Jurist who worked in the Parliament of Toulouse France in the middle of the 17th century (1630-1665) is speaking:

“From childhood, I was fascinated by numbers, and mathematical propositions often came to me quite as naturally as breathing! But, alas, it was not my fate to become a professional academic. My father, Dominique Fermat, prevailed upon me to study law in order to have a vocation that would enable me to support my family. While my law degree did enable me to become a productive member of society, I was often bored with legal work, and turned to musings about numbers when not occupied with my duties as a juror. I had studied Greek and Latin while at University, which allowed me to have access to the works of natural philosophers and mathematicians of the past. Around 1625, I began working in my spare time on reconstructing the works of the Greek geometer Apollonius, having to do with loci and planar surfaces.

Because I was not an academic, I had no ready institutional support to publish my findings, so I saved my mathematical musings in the back of my desk and tried to correspond with professional mathematicians as I could, on occasion. Rene Descartes, the recognized genius of the day, dismissed me as an amateur, derided my use of “obscure notation” and called my demonstrations “lucky guesses” when I proved to be right. I was able to calculate areas and volumes under various curves using the process of diminishing infinitesimals, something which Descartes declared to be “impossible”. We also had disagreements about the mathematics and geometry of the refraction of light and the construction of tangents to curves, and even though he was wrong, his inflated ego would not allow him to see the truth! Later, I found more favorable reception of my ideas with the eminent philosopher of natural sciences, Blaise Pascal, especially regarding the calculation of probabilities, but it was number theory that was my first love; especially Diophantine equations and infinite descent. The acme of my mathematical musings was my proof of the following proposition: 
Xn + Yn cannot equal Zn, when X, Y and Z are integers and n is an integer larger than 2.

It was well-known from the time of the Greek mathematician Pythagoras that the sum of the squares of two whole numbers can equal a larger whole number squared. In fact, there are an endless number of such triads, XYX, such that X2 + Y2 = Z2, as is demonstrated in the Pythagorean Theorem. But no one was able to produce a set of numbers satisfying this requirement when n is larger than 2. In 1637 I found an elegant proof that the equation Xn + Yn = Zn has no whole-number solutions when n is greater than 2. I penned a statement to this effect in the margin of my copy of the book Diophantus’ Arithmetica, but the proof was a little too long to include in the note. However, the whole proof scarcely covered a single page, and I placed it among some other short notes in a cubbyhole of my desk for safe keeping.”
  ▬ ▬ ▼▲▼ ▬ ▬ ▬
Now, as the reader may know, Pierre de Fermat’s proof that Xn + Yn ≠ Zn, when X, Y, Z and n are integers and n > 2 became famous as “Fermat’s Last Theorem”, because Fermat’s proof was never found and the world’s best mathematicians were unable to prove or disprove it to their satisfaction for more than 300 years. Because of that, mathematicians came to believe that Fermat was probably mistaken about having a proof. What the reader may or may not know, is that I proved Fermat’s Last Theorem in 1965, 30 years before Andrew Wiles’ proof was finally accepted in 1995. My proof was short, unlike Wiles’ proof of more than 200 pages, and in Fermat’s notation it would probably fit on a single page. 

All attempts to refute my proof, which I call FLT65, over the past 50 plus years have failed, but it still has only been accepted by a few mathematicians because of the general belief that a “simple” proof of FLT is simply impossible. The whole history of my attempts to get it accepted and several of the attempts to refute it are posted on this blog. Just search for ‘FLT65’ if you want  to see them.

Fermat’s Last Theorem proved to be important in the development of the quantum mathematics I developed, called the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions, which Dr. Vernon Neppe and I applied in our Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP), a shift to consciousness based science. However, the TDVP does not rely on my FLT65 proof at all, because it only requires the the validity of FLT for values of n from 3 to 9, and it has been known that FLT is valid for n=3 to a much larger value than 9 for a very long time.

It would be nice to be recognized for being the first to prove FLT since Fermat, and it would restore Fermat’s honor and reputation as a first-rate mathematician, but I’m not holding my breath. I’ve learned to be patient because I believe at length, the truth will out!

On a deeper level, I was beginning to feel depressed about the loss of the physical presence of my soulmate Jacqui. I am fortunate to have evidence in the form of a meticulous double-blind experiment that she still exists as a conscious entity, able to communicate with me and help me as she did while alive. But that evidence is of an indirect nature. I would like the communication to be more direct and personal, just between the two of us. I am becoming impatient for that to happen, and impatience leads to disappointment and disappointment breeds depression. 

Today is Black Friday, the seventh anniversary of the day Jacqui suffered acute kidney failure in Tucson Arizona, and I had to rush her frantically to the ER at St. Joseph's Hospital,

a black day indeed. Jacqui’s birthday is coming up in two weeks and the first anniversary of the day she died is only three days later, so during the first holiday season without her, it’s easy for me to become depressed. But I must be patient.

ERC 11/29/2019

Sunday, November 24, 2019


An excerpt:
Proof of the Continuation of Consciousness
This book presents, perhaps for the first time in the current period of development of empirical science and ascending mental virtue, indisputable scientific evidence of the survival of human consciousness beyond the destruction of the physical body. For years, many people have reported near-death experiences (NDEs), out-of-body experiences (OBEs) and evidence that the consciousness of loved ones who have died survives, but the evidence is usually very subjective. The evidence reported in this book goes beyond subjective feelings, dreams. Imagination, or seeing visions of smiling departed loved ones, assuring those left behind that they are happy in a reality beyond the pain and suffering of physical life. This book contains proof, in the form of the results of a double-blind scientific experiment, that Jacquelyn Ann Hill-Close, known and loved simply as Jacqui by thousands she helped during her all-too-short lifetime, survived the funeral pyre and still has the ability to interact with those of us she has left behind.

This is not a ghost story. It is not an account of a faint voice in the darkness or an eerie apparition. It’s not based on dreams or wishful thinking, it’s a report of credible scientific evidence of the continued robust existence of Jacqui’s consciousness, still functioning in much the same way it did when she was moving among us in a physical body. This book is a sequel to the book Secrets of the Sacred Cube, A Cosmic Love Story, written by Jacqui and me, her husband of more than forty years, and published about nine months after she left her physical body for the last time in this life.

Thursday, November 14, 2019



On this blog I have now posted 458 statements, essays and videos, comments on science, life, Thinking, and living. Read as many as you wish. Search with key words, like Dr. Vernon Neppe, Edward R Close, Jacqui Close, Quantum Physics, Relativity, Consciousness, Spirituality, Proof, Gimmel, Love, etc. Here are links to my latest efforts, two new books, and recent You-Tube interviews with Jeffery Mishlove on New Thinking Allowed:

Information on how to get Secrets of the Sacred Cube, A Cosmic Love Story

Is Consciousness Primary? [my contribution is Chapter 4 and Appendix A]:
Http:// Search for “Is Consciousness Primary?”

New Thinking Allowed ERC Interview No. 1: The Delayed-Choice Double-Slit Experiment, released October 11

New Thinking Allowed ERC Interview No. 2: The Constancy of the Speed of Light, released October 21

New Thinking Allowed ERC Interview No. 3: Spiritual Practice and Scientific Inquiry, released November 1

New Thinking Allowed ERC Interview No. 4: The Mysterious Component of Realityreleased November 11

New Thinking Allowed ERC Interview No. 5: Nonlocalityreleased November 20

New Thinking Allowed: Interview No. 6: Mathematics and the Physical Universe, Released November 29

I wrote my first book of poetry when I was 10 years old. The first time words that I wrote were published was when I was a freshman in college in 1955. I’ve written more than 200 technical papers, and my first book was published by Libra Publishers in New York in 1977. In the 42 years since then, I’ve authored and/or co-authored nine books, - and as long as I am alive, there will be more to come!
So, I’m a writer? No, writing is just something I do. Why do I do it? I agree with Flannery O’Connor, who said: "I write to discover what I know." I also agree with Anais Nin who said: "We write to taste life twice, in the moment and in retrospect."

In my latest book, Secrets of the Sacred Cube, A Cosmic Love Story, I have tried, as diligently as I could to reflect these sentiments, and to fulfill the words of Carl Sagan, famous Cosmologist and popularizer of science. I think he got it right when he wrote: "A book is made from a tree. It is an assemblage of flat, flexible parts (still called "leaves") imprinted with dark pigmented squiggles. One glance at it and you hear the voice of another person, perhaps someone dead for thousands of years. Across the millennia, the author is speaking, clearly and silently, inside your head, directly to you. Writing is perhaps the greatest of human inventions, binding together people, citizens of distant epochs, who never knew one another. Books break the shackles of time--proof that humans can work magic."

Finally, it was Franz Kafka, who said: "Don't bend; don't water it down; don't try to make it logical; don't edit your own soul according to the fashion. Rather, follow your most intense obsessions mercilessly."
I write, first and foremost, for myself. It’s my way of getting everything out in concrete form, so I know what I know, understand and remember. And I’m willing to share. I offer it to you, to read to ponder and think about. You don’t have to agree, but read first, with an open heart, then decide.

ER Close, November 14, 2019

Friday, November 8, 2019


©Edward R. Close, 2019

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. Genesis 1:3

To most people, the word light just means visible light, but physicists have discovered that visible light is just a tiny fraction of an existing spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. Most physics texts define the radiant energy that includes visible light, as “a transverse electromagnetic wave” that moves through the vacuum of interstellar space at the enormous velocity of 186,282 miles per second. That’s more than 670 million miles per hour. But, if light is a form of energy that travels in waves, like the kinetic energy of a rock thrown into a pool of water travels in waves in the water, we must ask: What is it that oscillates in the vacuum of empty space? If that isn’t enough of a puzzle, a little farther along in the physics text, we find out that light can travel at this tremendous speed either as little energy packets called photons, or as waves of electromagnetic energy, as indicated in the definition, depending on how we choose to measure it!

But it gets even worse! In the delayed-choice, double-slit experiment, we learn that light is neither particle (photon) nor wave, until it impacts a receptor, like a photographic plate or a screen. Until then, it is only describable a mathematical expression called the Schrödinger wave equation, which is a probability function. That means that it only gives us a range of probabilities concerning the location of the photon or wave, but reveals nothing about its physical characteristics, such as whether it is wave or particle. That is not revealed until it impacts a receptor. So, we must ask: why? In my opinion, the Close-Neppe discovery of gimmel answers that question. I will explain more later in this post.

Scientists, pretty much like most human beings, fall quite easily into the self-delusional trap of thinking that naming something is the same as knowing what that something is. The definition of light is an excellent example. Look at the definition quoted above again. It sounds very scientific and may convince the reader that the physicist who wrote the book actually knows what light is. Nothing could be further from the truth! Almost everything mainstream science theorizes about light is vague, and even paradoxical like the question of its particle-wave nature, and certainly only scratches the surface of an understanding of what light is. Exactly what is a transverse electromagnetic wave? It’s a self-propagating wave of energy that consists of two forces, electric and magnetic, energetic pulses that manifest in vectors that are at right angles to each other. The electric charge alternates from positive to negative, while the magnetic force alternates from attraction to repulsion, and the whole thing travels like a juggler on a unicycle in a direction which is at right angles to both of the directional electromagnetic forces. The neat little diagrams of electromagnetic waves that we find in physics books tell us about as much about light as a cardboard cutout of a cartoon picture of a man tells us about human beings.

In the Neppe-Close Triadic Dimensional Vortex Paradigm (TDVP), reality consists of dynamic mass, energy, consciousness events occurring in a nine-finite-dimensional domain, embedded in a 10th dimension which is transfinite, embedded in an infinitely continuous conscious substrate. Gimmel is the link between the 3S-1t (three dimensions of space and one quantum of time) domain that is available to our physical senses and the infinitely continuous conscious substrate. And light is the actual form of the infinitely continuous conscious substrate.
What is light? Nothing less than the physical manifestation of Primary Consciousness. The reason light does not exist as particle or wave in 3S-1t until it impacts a receptor, is because it is the impact on something perceptible to our senses, that causes it to manifest in 3S-1t. This explains the double-slit experiment, the delayed-choice experiment, the EPR paradox, Schrödinger's cat, and quantum entanglement.

ERC November 8, 2019