TRUE UNITS AND THE NATURAL ELEMENTS OF THE PERIODIC TABLE

THE SECONDARY LEVEL OF SYMMETRIC STABILITY – ATOMS

Atoms are semi-stable structures composed of electrons, protons and neutrons. They are not as stable as protons and neutrons, but they are generally more stable than molecules.

The Elements of the Periodic Table

The Hydrogen atom is unique among the natural elements in that it has only two mass/energy components, the electron and proton. Thus, because Fermat’s Last Theorem prohibits the symmetrical combination of two symmetrical particles; they cannot combine to form stable structures like the combination of quarks to form the proton and neutron. The electron, with a small fraction of the mass of the proton, is drawn by electric charge to whirl around the proton, seeking stability.  This means that the Hydrogen atom, the elemental building block of the universe, composed only of the mass and energy of an electron and a proton, is inherently unstable. So why is it that we have any stable structures at all; why is there a universe? As Leibniz queried: “why is there something rather than nothing”?

One of the X_n integers must be 24 to represent the TRUE unit value of the proton, and among the integer solutions of the m = n = 3 conveyance equation listed above there are four solutions with 24 as one of the X_n solution integers. Nature is parsimonious, and we must never make a mathematical description or demonstration any more complicated than it has to be. Therefore, we start with the smallest solution with 24 as one of the X_n integers. It is 3³ + 18³ + 24³ = 27³. But it does not contain an X_n equal to 38, so we must continue, searching for an integer solution that contains both 24 and 38 on the left side of the equation.  Since there are no smaller integer solutions with co-multiples of 24 and 38 as terms in the left side of the equation, we can use the solution that provided a stable Helium atom: 24³ + 38³ + 106³ = 108³. Using it to represent the Hydrogen atom, we have:

TRUE-Unit Analysis for Hydrogen 1 (Protium), Valence = - 2 + 1 = -1

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	Volume
e	- 3	1	105	106	1,191,016
P+	+ 3	17	7	24	13,824
Cג*	0	0	38	38	54,872
Totals	0	18	150	168	1,259,712=1083

* Since the Proton required 17 mass/energy units and 7 ג units, adding up to 24 Total TRUE units, to achieve triadic stability (see the Tables describing the Proton), to achieve the same level of stability as the proton and neutron, the Hydrogen atom must have a third additive component, C_ג, consisting of 38 ג units, the third form of the ‘stuff’ of reality, not measureable as mass or energy in 3S-1t. This satisfies the conveyance equation and produces a stable Hydrogen atom with a total volume of 108³.

Without the ג units needed by Hydrogen to achieve stability, we would have no universe. The TRUE units of two symmetrically stable entities, the electron and proton, could not combine to form a third symmetrically stable entity (Fermat’s Last Theorem). Because of the asymmetry of their form as two symmetric entities of different sizes in TRUE units, they could not combine; they would spiral and be easily separated by any external force. Even if they could adhere to other particles, the resulting universe would be very boring. All multiples of such a building block would have the same chemical characteristics. With the input of the appropriate number of ג units, Hydrogen is a basic building block of symmetrically stable forms in the 3S–1t observable domain of the physical universe.

In 3S-1t, TRUE units can manifest as mass, energy or ג, in order to form symmetrically stable particles and the 168 total TRUE units of the Hydrogen atom may be arranged in another stable structural form, observed as the simple combination of one electron, one proton and one neutron, known as Deuterium, an isotope of Hydrogen (an atom with the same chemical properties).

Hydrogen 2 (Deuterium), Valence = -2 + 1 = -1

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	Volume
e	- 3	1	105	106	1,191,016
P+	+ 3	17	7	24	13,824
N0	0	22	16	38	54,872
Totals	0	40	128	168	(108)3

Hydrogen 2 (H2) is held together by electrical charge and 128 ג units, 22 less than the H1 atom. This means that H2 is not as stable as H1. What about other isotopes of H1? Is it possible that the TRUE units of a Hydrogen atom or a Deuterium atom can combine with one or more additional neutrons to form stable isotopes? Hydrogen 3 (H3), known as Tritium, is a second isotope of Hydrogen. Its form in TRUE units is represented below.

Hydrogen 3 (Tritium), Valence = - 2 + 1 = -1

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	Volume
e	- 3	1	105	106	1,191,016
P+	+ 3	17	7	24	13,824
2N0	0	44	32	76	438,976
Totals	0	62	144	206	(118.018…)3 *

^*We see that H3 is an asymmetric structure. One electron, one proton and two neutrons, brought together by attractive forces, cannot combine volumetrically to form a symmetrically stable structure, and as a result, it is unstable and there are very few H3 atoms. Looking at the TRUE unit structure for H1, H2 and H3, we see that all three are bonded by electrical charge, but H1 has volumetric stability and 150 ג units holding it together; H2 has volumetric stability, more mass/energy units and fewer ג units than H1; and H3 has more mass/energy units and ג units, but no volumetric stability. This explains why H1 is the most abundant, H2 less abundant, and H3 correspondingly less stable. The atomic weights of the elements of the periodic table, in amu (atomic mass units), are actually the mean values of atomic masses calculated from a great number of samples. The accepted mean atomic weight for Hydrogen to four significant figures is 1.008. This includes H1 and all isotopes of Hydrogen. If all hydrogen atoms were H1 atoms, this number would be exactly 1. H1 is by far the most stable, and therefore, most abundant, of the Hydrogen family, making up more than 99.99% of all Hydrogen in the universe. Other H isotopes make up the remaining 0.01%, mostly H2, with H3 and other isotopes heavier than H2 occurring only rarely in trace amounts.

STABILITY AND PARTICLE BONDING

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. They are, in order of strength, dimensionometric tethering, represented by ג (gimmel), the attractive forces of electrical charge, magnetism and gravity. The first is the organizing force of the transfinite substrate, mediated by the conveyance equation to produce negative entropy. The last three are products of relative motion in resistance to negative entropy and universal expansion. First, structures with more ג units are more strongly connected with the nine-dimensional structure of the substrate. Second, 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 saw above, these numbers are not arbitrary; they are dictated by the quantum nature of our 3S-1t reality, and the integer solutions of the Diophantine equations of the Conveyance Expression. Recall also, that units of ג, mass and energy, integrated through application of the principles of the Special Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, 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 vortices 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, and the symmetry created by their high rate of rotation, or vortical spin.

The impact of the ג units in 3S-1t observations reflects the logic of the conscious substrate, so thinking of ג as units of consciousness or intelligence, 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 consciousness in all physical structures. Finally, we see that with Hydrogen atoms and neutrons as building blocks, the entire periodic table of elements is produced and their physical and chemical characteristics can be explained in terms of their structure in TRUE units.

In the conventional description of the combining of elements and molecules to form new entities, first, 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, and with fewer, it is called a positive ion. 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.

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, 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.

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, as shown below.

HELIUM Valence = - 2 + 2 = 0 (Inert)

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	Volume
2e	- 6	2	210	212*	9,528,128
2P+	+ 6	34	14	48	110,592
2N0	0	44	32	76	438,976
Totals	0	80	256	336	(2x108)3

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 attracted to other atoms.

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 with to form Lithium.

LITHIUM, Valence = – 2 + 3 = +1

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	Volume
3e	- 9	3	315	318	32,157,432
3P+	+ 9	51	21	72	373,248
4N0	0	88	64	152	3,511,808
Totals	0	142	400	542	(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.

THE TERTIARY LEVEL OF SYMMETRIC STABILITY – MOLECULAR BONDING

We’ve seen how quarks combine in very stable symmetric triads of TRUE units and how atoms form stable or semi-stable vortices, spinning structures consisting of stable triads of protons, neutrons and electrons. A third level of stable and semi-stable structures occurs as molecules are formed from more complex combinations of elemental atoms.

The Role of Valence

The number of electrons in the outer shell of an atom determines the observable identifying chemical characteristics of an element and with which other elements it can combine. Due to the quantized attractive force of electrical charges, arising from quantized angular momentum and spin, electrons are attracted to the oppositely charged protons in the nucleus of an atom. Electrons, having a fraction (1/17) of the mass of photons, are pulled into orbit around the protons of an atom, forming specific finite, graduated concentric dimensional domains called “shells” enclosing the atom.

Using TRUE unit analysis, we find that, as a consequence of the size of the atom and the electron in TRUE units, the first shell has a volume of 212 TRUE units, the exact volume of two electrons. The second shell, with a larger diameter, has a volume of 848 TRUE units, and thus can contain 848/106 = 8 electrons. The maximum number of electrons that each shell can accommodate can be found by determining the volumetric equivalence of each shell in TRUE units. The maximum number of electrons in shells 1 through 6, respectively, is 2, 8, 18, 32, 50, and 72. As more complex atomic structures are formed by the addition of more of the building blocks, the finite volumes of the electron shells are filled with electrons, one after the other.

Atoms combine to form stable or semi-stable molecules in mathematically predictable ways, depending on the number of electrons in their outer-most shells. If an atom, even though electrically neutral and symmetrically stable, has room for one or more electrons in its outer shell, it can combine with another atom with that number of electrons in its outer shell to form a new structure. For example, an H1 Hydrogen atom, which has one electron in its two-electron-capacity shell, can combine with Lithium, which has its first shell filled, and one electron in its second shell. In another example of electron bonding, two Hydrogen atoms, with a combined two electron deficiency in the outer shells, can bond with one Oxygen atom which has two electrons in its outer shell. The first compound, Lithium Hydride, is never found in nature, while the second, H₂O, is the most abundant compound in nature. Why?

We are now in a position to explain things with TRUE unit analysis that are not fully understood or well explained by the standard model. For example, why are some elements and compounds more abundant in nature than others? Why is the simple valence-bonded compound Lithium Hydride never found in nature, while Hydrogen Oxide (water), an only slightly more complex compound, is very abundant in nature?

Lithium Hydride is very unstable and reactive with other substances. The current paradigm tries to explain compound bonding in terms of outer shell electrons, largely ignoring the rest of the atom. With TRUE-unit analysis, we see that when bonding occurs, some compounds are able to form symmetric structures, while others are not. The reasons for this involve the total TRUE units of the whole structure, including the other electron shells and the nucleus, not just the outer electron shell. To illustrate this point, we can compare the TRUE unit analyses for LiH and H₂O:

Lithium Hydride, Valence 4 - 2 = +2

Atoms	Particles	Charge	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	Volume
Li + H2	4e	-12	4	420	424	76,225,024
	4P+	+12	68	28	96	884,736
	4N0+ Cג	0	88	102	190	6,859,000
Totals	0	0	160	512	672	83,968,760=(437.89…)3

H₂O, Water, Valence =  -2 -8 + 10 = 0

Atoms	Particles	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	Volume
2(H2)+O*	10e	10	1050	1060	1,191,016,000
	10P+	170	70	240	13,824,000
	8N0+2Cג	176	204	380	54,872,000
	Totals	356	1,324	1,680	1,259,712,000=(1,080)3 =(10x108)3

^* See detailed TRUE units analysis for Oxygen listed in order below.

Comparing the TRUE analysis for LiH with H₂O, we can readily see why H₂O is more stable, and consequently more abundant in nature. LiH is strongly electrically bonded, but symmetrically unstable with a valence of +2, while H₂O is even more strongly bonded electrically, volumetrically stable, and has a stable outer electron shell. H₂O also has 790 more units of ג connecting it more firmly with the multi-dimensional substrate.

In Dr. David Stewart’s brilliant work integrating science and spirituality, “The Chemistry of Essential Oils Made Simple, God’s Love Manifest in Molecules” ^ref, he notes that “Theoretically, the next simplest possible atom [after Hydrogen] would be two electrons orbiting around two protons …This would be Helium. …However, [this] is not how helium usually occurs in nature … For some unknown reason, nature does not like Helium without neutrons.”

TRUE unit analysis explains why nature does not produce Helium without neutrons. TRUE unit analysis reveals that sub-atomic particles combine to form new complex structures in several ways: They can be drawn together by the forces of gravity and magnetism, they can become attached, held together by equal and opposite electric charge, they can share valence electrons, and if they have the exact mix of TRUE units of mass/energy and ג that satisfies the conveyance equation, they will form a stable, dimensionally symmetric structure. On the other hand, if the mix of TRUE units cannot satisfy the conveyance equation, bonding will produce asymmetric forms which will be semi-stable, or if their outer shells are not full, even unstable, subject to breaking apart when impacted by external forces, while forms volumetrically symmetric, electrically neutral and without valence electrons will be very stable. Helium without Neutrons, i.e. 2e + 2P⁺, cannot form a symmetrically stable structure. See the TRUE analysis table below.

Helium without Neutrons:

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	Volume
2e	- 9	2	210	212	9,528,128
2P+	+ 9	34	14	48	110,592
Totals	0	36	224	260	(212.917…)3 *

^*While this combination is charge neutral, it is asymmetric, and therefore only semi-stable, easily broken apart.

But why doesn’t a Helium atom achieve stability with more ג units as H1 did?

Helium without Neutrons, with Volumetric Symmetric Stability from ג units:

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	Volume
2e	- 6	2	210	212*	9,528,128
2P+	+ 6	34	14	48	110,592
2Cג	0	0	76	76	438,976
Totals	0	36	300	336	(2x108)3

To understand why this doesn’t happen, we have to look at all of the factors that contribute to the stability of an atom. The three major factors, in the three observable dimensions of 3S-1t, are electrical charge, angular momentum and symmetry. These factors depend on the quantized nature of mass, energy and ג, relative motion, and distance from the center of the atom to the outer shell. The overall stability of an atom depends on the combined effect of these factors on all three levels of the atom: the quark, nuclear, and electron shell levels. The effects of these factors are variably described in the current paradigm with terms like polarity, broken symmetry, quantum states, Eigen vectors, and parity.

The Helium atom has electron-shell stability because the first and only shell is full, while the Hydrogen atom does not, allowing it to compensate with ג units. As shown below, Helium with neutrons, 2e + 2P⁺ + 2N⁰ is volumetrically symmetric and electron-shell stable, and is, therefore, the form of Helium most often found in nature. Valence is an expression of the atom’s relative electron-shell stability. A symmetric atom with no valence atoms is very stable.

HELIUM Valence = - 2 + 2 = 0 (Inert)

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	Volume
2e	- 6	2	210	212*	9,528,128
2P+	+ 6	34	14	48	110,592
2N0	0	44	32	76	438,976
Totals	0	80	256	336	(2x108)3

The next natural element after Lithium is Beryllium. Since it is asymmetric and has two valence electrons, it is much less stable than Hydrogen (H1) and Helium.

Beryllium, Valence = – 2 + 4 = +2

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	MREV
4e	- 12	4	420	424	76,225,024
4P+	+ 12	68	28	96	884,736
5N0	0	110	80	190	6,859,000
Totals	0	182	528	710	(437.8976…)3

BORON, Valence = – 2 + 5 = +3

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	MREV
5e	- 15	5	525	530	148,877,000
5P+	+ 15	85	35	120	1,728,000
6N0	0	132	96	228	11,852,352
Totals	0	222	656	878	162,457,352=(545.648…)3

We see that Boron is also asymmetric with valence electrons and is therefore semi-stable; but the next element, Carbon, is more stable, being volumetrically symmetric. Carbon and the next two atoms, Nitrogen and Oxygen are the most stable and abundant elements after Hydrogen and Helium, and since they are not electron-shell stable, they readily combine with Hydrogen to form natural organic compounds. This establishes Hydrogen, Carbon, Nitrogen and Oxygen as the primary building blocks of life, making up between 92% and 96% of living matter ^ref.

As we proceed with the TRUE unit analysis, we will see that the other elements and compounds necessary for life and the manifestation of consciousness in sentient beings are produced in abundance by the organizing action of the third form as ג units, and the conveyance equation.

CARBON, Valence =  – 2 + 6 = +4

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	MREV
6e	- 18	6	630	636	257,259,456
6P+	+ 18	102	42	144	2,985,984
6N0	0	132	96	228	11,852,352
Totals	0	140	768	1,008	272,097,792=6483

NITROGEN, Valence = – 2 + 7 = +5

Particle	Charge	Energy/Mass	ג	Total TRUE Units	MREV
7e	- 21	7	735	742	408,518,488
7P+	+ 21	119	49	168	4,741,632
7N0	0	154	112	266	18,821,096
Totals	0	280	896	1,176	432,081,216 =7563

OXYGEN, Valence = – 2 + 8 = +6

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	MREV
8e	- 24	8	840	848	609,800,192
8P+	+ 24	136	56	192	7,077,888
8N0	0	176	128	304	28,094,464
Totals	0	320	1,024	1,344	644,972,544=8643

Moving on to Fluorine, we find it to be volumetrically asymmetric and volatile.

FLUORINE, Valence = – 2 + 9 = +7

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	MREV
9e	- 27	9	945	954	868,250,664
9P+	+ 27	153	63	216	10,077,696
10N0	0	220	160	380	54,872,000
Totals	0	382	1,168	1,550	(977,218…)3

NEON, Valence = – 2 – 8 + 10 = 0 (Inert)

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	Volume
10e	- 30	10	1050	1060	1,191,016,000
10P+	+ 30	170	70	240	13,824,000
10N0	0	220	160	380	54,872,000
Totals	0	400	1,280	1,680	1,259,712,000=10803

Notice that Hydrogen, Carbon, Nitrogen, and Oxygen, the basic elements of organic life -thanks to the presence of ג in their atomic structure- are volumetrically symmetric and have available valence electrons. Helium and Neon are also symmetric, but are not among the basic elements of organic life because they are inert and therefore unable to readily combine with Hydrogen. All of the other elements analyzed so far, are asymmetric and less abundant in nature.

It is no accident that the reactive, volumetrically symmetric elements are important building blocks of natural organic compounds, and that complex combinations of them manifest life and consciousness.

SODIUM, Valence = – 10 +11 = +1

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	Volume
11e	- 33	11	1,155	1,166	1,585,242,296
11P+	+ 33	187	77	264	18, 399,744
12N0	0	264	192	456	94,818,816
Totals	0	462	1,424	1,886	(1,193.12…)3

MAGNESIUM, Valence = – 10 +12 = +2

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	Volume
12e	- 36	12	1,260	1,272	2,058,075,648
12P+	+ 36	204	84	288	23, 887,872
12N0	0	264	192	456	94,818,816
Totals	0	480	1,536	2,016	(12X108)3

ALUMINIUM^*, Valence = – 10 + 13 = +3

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	Volume
13e	- 39	13	1,365	1,378	2,616,662,152
13P+	+ 39	221	91	312	30,371,328
14N0	0	308	224	532	150,568,768
Totals	0	542	1,680	2,222	(1,409.057…)3

*It is my position that this is the correct spelling, consistent with metal nomenclature, however, being an American, I tend to pronounce it ‘Aluminum’.

SILICON, Valence = -10 +14 = +4

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	Volume
14e	- 42	14	1,470	1,484	3,268,147,904
14P+	+ 42	238	98	336	37,933,056
14N0	0	308	224	532	150,568,768
Totals	0	560	1,792	2,352	1,5123=(14x108)3

Interestingly, Silicon, Phosphorus, Sulfur and Chlorine are analogous in valence and structure to Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Fluorine, prompting some to speculate that under favorable conditions they might combine with Hydrogen in the same way to form ‘Silicon-based’ life forms. Whether or not this could happen, these elements are important and even necessary for life as we know it. While not abundant in the human body, they are abundant, along with the heavier, metallic elements in our life-supporting environment, Planet Earth.  

Clearly, we can analyze all of the elements and the virtually endless molecular forms existing in the observable universe in terms of TRUE units, with the potential of explaining more real phenomena, anomalous empirical data and details not explained by the current paradigm. I have personally spent thousands of hours to date, and will spend many more exploring this fascinating new paradigm created by putting consciousness into the equations of science. But for this presentation, time and space are limited. I will close by summarizing the TRUE analyses presented so far.

The table below summarizes the TRUE-unit properties of elements of the Periodic Table from Hydrogen through Silicon.

SUMMARY OF TRUE UNIT ANALYSES OF THE ELEMENTS

Element	ג Units	Total TRUE	Percent     ג Units	Valence	TRUE Volume	Abundance Rank
Hydrogen	150	168	89%	-1	1083	1
Deuterium	128	168	76%	-1	1083
Tritium	144	206	70%	-1	(118.02)3
Helium	256=2x128	336	76%	0	(2x108)3	2
?					(3x108)3
Lithium	400		74%	+1	(330.32)3
?					(4x108)3
Beryllium	582		74%	+2	(437.89)3
?					(5x108)3
Boron	656		74%	+3	(545.65)3
Carbon	768=6x128		76.2%	+4	(6x108)3	4
Nitrogen	896=7x128		76.2%	+5	(7x108)3	6
Oxygen	1,024=8x128	1,344	76.2%	+6	(8x108)3	3
?					(9x108)3
Fluorine	1,168	1,550	75.4%	+7	(977.22)3
Neon	1,280=10x128	1,680	76.2%	0	(10x108)3	3
Element	ג Units	Total TRUE	Percent     ג Units	Valence	TRUE Volume	Abundance Rank
?					(11x108)3
Sodium	1,424	1,886	75.5%	+1	(1,193.12)3
Magnesium	1,536=12x128	2,016	76.2%	+2	(12x108)3	9
?					(13x108)3
Aluminium	1,680	2,222	75.6%	+3	(1,409.06)3
Silicon	1,792	2,352	76.2%	+4	(14x108)3	8

Inspection of this table reveals that the elements that have volumetric symmetry all have three things in common: (1)The number of ג units it takes to give them volumetric stability is the number of electrons they possess times 128, the number of ג units of Deuterium; (2) the percentage of units is exactly the same, 76.19…; and (3) their total TRUE volume is the cube of  the value of their number of electrons times 108, the number of the TRUE units of Hydrogen and Deuterium. These three features of the elements that are symmetric in TRUE units underline the role of ג units and the Neutron in the formation of a stable universe. Inspection of the table also reveals that the regularity of volumetrically symmetric elements appears to have gaps in it because there are no elements to fill the 3x108, 4x108, 5x108, 9x108, 11x108, and 13x108 positions in the table. But these gaps can be filled if we expand our definition of the Periodic Table. If we think of the TRUE units of mass, energy and ג as the primary building blocks of the universe, electrons, protons and neutrons as the secondary level of building blocks, and molecules as the tertiary level of building blocks, this table becomes a list of all of the building blocks of the universe, not just elements.

FILLING IN THE GAPS

The first clue to identifying the symmetric entity that fills a given gap in the sequence of TRUE-unit volumetric symmetry is its location relative to the other symmetric forms in the table. The compound that fills a given gap can only be formed from combinations of symmetric atoms and/or compounds that are smaller than it. For example, the (3x108)³ gap can only be filled by a compound entity composed of Helium [TRUE volume = (2x108)³] and Hydrogen or Deuterium [TRUE volume = (1x108)³]. The table below identifies symmetrical molecular entities that complete the Periodic Table of Building Blocks.

true-UNIT SYMMETRIC molecular coMPOUNDS

Compound	ג Units	Total TRUE	Valence	Percent     ג Units	TRUE Volume	Comments
Helium  Hydride HeH	384	504	+1	76.2%	(3x108)3	Super acid Not found in Nature
Lithium Hydride Li and H2 (Deuterium)	512	672	+2	76.2%	(4x108)3	Rare in Nature Very Reactive
(He)2H	640	826	+3	76.2%	(5x108)3	Produced in Nuclear Fusion
HeH3	640	826	+3	76.2%	(5x108)3	Produced in Nuclear Fusion
Hydroxide HO	1,174	1,512	-1	77.6%	(9x108)3	Building Block of Amino Acids
H2N	1,174	1,512	-1	77.6%	(9x108)3	Common in Amino Acids
CH3	1,174	1,512	-1	77.6%	(9x108)3	Common in Organic Compounds
H2O	1,324	1,680	0	78.8%	(10x108)3	Water
H4N	1,496	1,848	+1	80.9%	(11x108)3	Ammonium Ion
C2H	1,686	2,184	+3	77.2%	(13x108)3	Major Component of Cysteine Amino Acid

While filling the gaps in the sequence of (nx108)³ symmetric structures in the Periodic Table, we find that there may be two or more compounds with the exact TRUE volume to fill the gaps, increasing in number as n increases. We also discover that, after n = 9, there are symmetric compounds equal in TRUE volume to some elements. H₂O, for example, has a TRUE volume of (10x108)³, the same TRUE volume as the inert gas Neon. The TRUE-unit analyses for the compounds in the Table immediately above are displayed below.

Helium Hydride, Valence = - 2 + 3 = +1

Compound	Particles	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	Volume
He + H	3e	3	315	318	32,157,432
	3P+	51	21	72	373,248
	3N0	66	48	114	1,481,544
	Totals	120	384	504	34,012,224=(324)3 = (3x108)3

Lithium Hydride, Valence = - 2 + 4 = +2

Atoms	Particles	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	Volume
Li + H2	4e	4	420	424	76,225,024
	4P+	68	28	96	884,736
	4N0	88	64	152	3,511,808
	Totals	160	512	672	80,621,568=(432)3 = (4x108)3

(He)₂H, Valence = - 2 + 5 = +3

Atoms	Particles	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	Volume
(He)2H	5e	5	525	530	148,877,000
	5P+	85	35	120	1,728,000
	5N0	110	80	190	6,859,000
	Totals	186	640	826	157,464,000=(540)3 = (5x108)3

HeH₃, Valence = - 2 + 5 = +3

Atoms	Particles	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	Volume
(He)2H	5e	5	525	530	148,877,000
	5P+	85	35	120	1,728,000
	5N0	110	80	190	6,859,000
	Totals	186	640	826	157,464,000=(540)3 = (5x108)3

HO, Hydroxide Ion, Valence = - 2 + 9 = +7

Atoms	Particles	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	Volume
2H + O	9e	9	945	954	868,250,664
	9P+	153	63	216	10,077,696
	1Cג+8N0	176	166	342	40,001,688
	Totals	338	1,174	1,512	918,330,048=(972)3 = (9x108)3

H₂N, Valence = - 2 + 9 = +7

Atoms	Particles	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	Volume
2H + N	9e	9	945	954	868,250,664
	9P+	153	63	216	10,077,696
	9N0	176	166	342	40,001,688
	Totals	338	1,174	1,512	918,330,048=(972)3 = (9x108)3

CH₃, Valence = - 2 + 9 = +7

Atoms	Particles	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	Volume
C + 3H	9e	9	945	954	868,250,664
	9P+	153	63	216	10,077,696
	9N0	176	166	342	40,001,688
	Totals	338	1,174	1,512	918,330,048=(972)3 = (9x108)3

H₂O, Water, Valence = -2 -8 + 10 = 0

Atoms	Particles	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	Volume
2(H2)+O*	10e	10	1050	1060	1,191,016,000
	10P+	170	70	240	13,824,000
	8N0+2Cג	176	204	380	54,872,000
	Totals	356	1,324	1,680	1,259,712,000=(1,080)3 =(10x108)3

H₄N, Valence = 11 -2 – 8 = +1

Atoms	Particles	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	Volume
4H1+ N	11e	11	1,155	1,166	1,585,242,296
	11P+	187	77	264	18,399,744
	4Cג+7N0	154	264	418	73,034,632
	Totals	352	1,496	1,848	1,676,676,672=(1,188)3 =(11x108)3

C₂H, Valence = 13 -2 – 8 = +3

Atoms	Particles	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	Volume
2C + H	13e	13	1,365	1,378	2,616,662,152
	13P+	221	91	312	30,371,328
	Cג+12N0	264	230	494	120,553,784
	Totals	498	1,686	2,184	2,767,587,264=(1,404)3 =(13x108)3

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Applying the process of rotation and unitary projection from dimension to dimension in Euclidean space, we find that the mathematical structure of basic number theory requires the existence of nine finite orthogonal dimensions embedded successively in an infinitely continuous substrate. Applying the logic of the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions, an application and extension of George Spencer Brown’s Laws of Form, to LHC particle-collider mass/energy data for electrons, protons and neutrons, considered as spinning distinctions of content occupying unitary distinctions of extent in the 3S-1t dimensional domain of physical observations, we find that the light-speed limitation of Einstein’s special relativity and Planck’s quantization of mass and energy define a minimal unitary distinction. This minimal mass/energy, space-time distinction is the smallest possible finite building block of the 3S-1t universe.. As such, it replaces the infinitesimal of the differential calculus of Newton and Leibniz in the mathematical analysis of physical reality. The Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions provides us with the tool needed to extend the work of Minkowski, Einstein, Kaluza, Klein, Pauli, and others who have attempted to use multi-dimensional analysis to integrate and explain the laws of physics.

The process of rotation and unitary orthogonal projection from the planes of one dimension to the next in Euclidean space utilizes the Pythagorean Theorem. Generalization of the Pythagorean Theorem equation to three dimensions and application to the minimal quantized distinctions of extent and content produces a set of Diophantine expressions that perfectly describe the combination of elementary particles. Integer solutions of these equations represent stable, symmetric combinations of elementary particles; but when there are no integer solutions, the expressions are inequalities representing unstable combinations that decay quickly. Fermat’s Last Theorem applied to the equation describing the combination of two elementary particles tells us that there are no integer solutions, and thus no stable combinations. The equation for the combination of three particles, on the other hand, does have integer solutions. This explains why three quarks, not two, combine to form protons and neutrons.

Application of the equation describing the combination of three particles to particle-collider mass/energy data expressed as multiples of the minimal unit, reveals that, in order for stable combinations to form, in addition to the volumetrically equivalent forms of mass and energy, there has to be a third equivalent form that does not register in physical measurements as mass or energy. Representing the third equivalent form with the symbol ψ in the equations describing the combination of three particles as integer multiples of the minimal unit, we are able to calculate the unique number of mass/energy units and gimmel (ג) units needed to produce the stable protons and neutrons of the atoms that make up the physical universe, i.e., the elements of the Periodic Table.

Analyzing the new information provided by the third form of the “stuff” of the physical universe, we find interesting patterns in the structure of the Elements. For example, Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Sulfur have the exact same percentage of ג units. This exact ratio in elements that play a major role in life-supporting organisms is not accidental. Without the presence of ג units, no stable structures could form and there would be no physical universe.  This means that ג TRUE units had to be present from the formation of the first elementary particle, guiding the formation of the physical universe to produce structures capable of supporting life. This supports the hypothesis that logical structure, meaning, purpose and life are not emergent epiphenomena, but intrinsic features of reality.

TDVP provides a “mechanism” explaining why there is something rather than nothing. In TDVP, the form and structure of reality is determined by the intrinsic logic of nine-dimensional reality, without requiring any transfer of mass or energy.

These results strongly suggest that, in a nine-dimensional spin reality, stable structures are purposefully formed for use as vehicles through which the consciousness of the C-substrate may experience spacetime reality.

REPLY TO COMMENT

MY REPLY TO COMMENTS POSTED ON ANOTHER FORUM

Thank you for your comments and the various links to information that you believe may support your comments. I appreciate the time and thought you have expended on this. It will take me a while to check out all of the links and comment on them if appropriate, but in the meantime, there are some points of confusion in your comments that I will try to clear up.

In regard to the Platonic hypothesis that an infinitely logical reality underlies the universe we perceive and is reflected by the structure of pure mathematics, you state that you are not a pure Aristotelian, but that it does not mean that you are ‘Platonian’. You continue: “also not in Ed's meaning (and belief apparently that you can invent arbitrarily mathematical equations and think they apply to nature),” … 

You make a huge leap here. I certainly do not believe that I, or anyone else, can arbitrarily invent equations. The logic of reality and mathematical structure are there to be discovered and explored. This speaks to the general confusion in science that is cleared up by TDVP, and answers Leibniz’s all-important question: “Why is there something instead of nothing?”

Conditions created by experimental physicists in the LHC and other particle colliders, blast natural atomic and sub-atomic structures apart to produce the high-energy particle zoo. They then claim that they have created conditions that mimic the conditions at the ‘big bang’ point of origin of the universe. They of course have done no such thing, in fact, it’s quite the opposite, but it sounds impressive and, along with the potential for creating weapons of mass destruction, it gets them megabucks funding.

TDVP models what actually goes on in the universe. Particles like the other 10 quarks, bosons, gluons, etc., created in LHC experiments quickly decay into up-and down-quarks, electrons and photons, and/or recombine to form the natural elements and ions that exist at normal conditions on the surface of the Earth. The real question is: why don’t they keep decaying in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics, all the way to maximum entropy? It’s because the presence of the third form, which Vernon and I have named ‘gimmel’, guided through the nine-dimensional domain in a completely logical, mathematical manner by the C substrate, expressed by the Conveyance Equations, forms stable protons and neutrons, and consequently, atomic and molecular stability.

TDVP vs MAINSTREAM SCIENCE

With the discovery of TRUE units, TDVP puts consciousness into the equations of the laws of nature and solves hard physics problems that have puzzled physicists for more than 50 years. TDVP also answers questions about real psychic and spiritual phenomena, and gives meaning and purpose to physical existence. Yet, many mainstream thinkers, scientists, philosophers, priests and ministers are hesitant to look at TDVP.
Here are three questions for anyone interested in this issue:
1. What do YOU think should be included in a 'theory of everything'?
2. Why do you think most mainstream scientists are NOT welcoming TDVP with open arms?
3. Why do you think most mainstream philosophers of religion are also NOT welcoming TDVP with open arms?
Please give some serious thought to these questions. Your answers may help us find ways to get more general acceptance for TDVP, the science of the future.

THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING

At 7:00 AM, this morning, February 27, 2015, I googled “Theory of Everything”. Sites with information on the new movie about the life of Stephen Hawking came up first, and my post, “THE UNIFICATION OF QUANTUM PHYSICS, RELATIVITY AND THE TDVP THEORY OF EVERYTHING”, with 15,940 views, came up next.

Like the character, Walter O’Brien, says in the intro to the TV series “Scorpion”, I have one of the highest IQs ever documented. But, I quite agree with Stephen Hawking when he says “people who brag about their IQs are losers”. So, why would I say such a thing?

I am saying it because it is true. I am a “Distinguished Member” of the most restrictive high IQ organization on the planet, even though I didn’t seek that membership, and I am saying it to get your attention, because I believe it is vitally important, even crucial for the future of humankind, that the world understands what a real theory of everything has to be.

I admire Stephen Hawking and honor him for all he has accomplished, but note that, in his 1988 book, “A Brief History of Time”, he predicted that a theory of everything would be in hand by 2000. That didn’t happen, and since then, at least a dozen books have been published by or about Stephen Hawking and the theory of everything. But still, no theory of everything.

Hawking thinks that M-Theory is best candidate. He says it is “a theory that unites all five string theories, as well as super gravity, within a single theoretical framework, but which is not yet fully understood”. The M-Theory, however, is not a theory of everything. Why? Because it simply does not include everything! There are no variables in the equations of M-Theory for consciousness. Consciousness connects physical reality with spiritual reality, giving rise to the better qualities in human beings, like honesty, integrity, loyalty, reverence, compassion, and love, yet it is nowhere to be found in any of mainstream science ‘theories of everything’.

Why would scientists call a theory restricted to physical phenomena a ‘theory of everything’? It’s simply because physicists focus on physics. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I know this well, because of my years of training as a physicist and mathematician. 

The portrayal of a ficticious young theoretical physicist, Dr. Sheldon Cooper, on the TV show “The Big Bang Theory” is an exaggeration for comedic effect to be sure, but the character does resemble some intelligent people I know. But, be assured, a real theory of everything is not going to come from highly educated individuals, however high their IQs may be, if they are adolescents spiritually, socially and emotionally handicapped as a result.

Physicists have been seeking a ‘theory of everything’ ever since Albert Einstein spent his final years trying to find a unified field theory. But, by ‘a theory of everything’, physicists simply mean a theory that will accurately explain how mass and energy interact in space and time, from the quantum level to the level of galaxies and the whole universe. Such a theory should answer many questions about the physical workings of the universe and advance modern technology, but cannot answer many of the really important questions like: Why is there something rather than nothing? What is the ultimate nature of reality? What is the meaning and purpose of life? What is consciousness? And how does it relate to physical reality? Who or what are we? Where did we come from, and where are we going?

Dr. Vernon Neppe, MD, PhD, an internationally renowned neuroscientist, and I, with the combined experience of nearly 100 years as scientists, have developed the Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP). TDVP provides a new, comprehensive basis not just for physics, but for all of the sciences, including the life sciences, psychology, studies of consciousness and even rare event phenomena. TDVP answers many of the most puzzling questions of modern physics, unifies classical science, modern science and parapsychology, and provides answers to more important questions about the purpose and meaning of consciousness and life in the universe.

DISCUSSION WITH A CRITICAL REVIEWER

The reviewer quotes me from my previous comments:

"even the most abstract mathematical theorem finds application in the real world sooner or later"

this is a highly unconventional view, to put it mildly. Sure,  within the discipline of mathematics there are differences in the viewpoints regarding some new math as only becoming real/known after discovery or the more Platonic viewpoint that all possible (logic) math is already 'out there'waiting to be discovered.
However, in mathematical physics, trying to describe our *realities* in line with experiments, whether materialistic, biological, economical, or sociological, or in medical science, it is commonly thought that only a subset of all known math applies; that's why a pure study of mathematics is often considered to be highly theoretical. Which engineer would be interested to prove that the sequence of 'twin primes' (prime numbers with only a  difference

of 2, eg 5,7, or 11, 13) is infinite ? According to Terence Tao this is not proven yet.  Not to mention the infinite number of possible string theories, of which we know that -provided even *one* could apply- they not all can apply to our common physical reality. Hope you see what i mean. For the rest i will revert to Ed by mail, i have some important points where i claim you cannot extend dimensions to known physics theories without having to rewrite all the basics again; well at least for s (which E and V) do not extend beyond 3, but also for t, which is onedimensional in our current mainstream theories. Extend that and you throw five centuries of physics into the garbage tray. And eg. Newton but also many others would turn around in their graves in misery.

My reply:

I don't believe Newton would turn over in his grave, because he was a believer in something more than matter and energy. I think he would accept that new theories like relativity, QM, and now TDVP, extend his work, not throw it into the garbage heap. I think discussions with Standard Model paradigm scientists like you are helpful in the sense that they reveal questions that Vernon and I need to know how to answer, and they provide material for additional books and articles.  But they have also prompted me to think more deeply about why there is such vehement resistance to our ideas. I believe I now know why they will not - and perhaps cannot - open their minds to a paradigm that allows room for paranormal phenomena, conscious spiritual experience and God. It’s not just that they are defending their life’s work, although that is certainly a strong motivator, they are defending what they see as the basis for all certain knowledge and sanity.

Science is about the search for certainty. The scientific ‘laws of nature’ provide some measure of certainty and predictability, which makes us, as small, vulnerable individual life forms, feel more secure and safe in a universe that appears to be violent and chaotic. Even with Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, the uncertainty is contained within a very narrow range that can be managed by a probability distribution function, allowing for reasonable prediction within the limits of our ability to observe and measure quantum phenomena. Standard Model scientists see allowing consciousness into the equations of physical science as opening the door to mysticism, which they see as fantasy and insanity, an anathema to their world of rationality. They will allow this only over their dead bodies!

One has to wonder if such individuals, at least in this lifetime, are capable of understanding that spiritual phenomena are real, and that verifiable paranormal and other phenomena, not explainable in the Standard Model paradigm, can be brought within objective rationality by including consciousness a a variable in the equations describing the laws of nature.

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BY A REVIEWER

Dear _____,

First of all, I want to thank you for your continuing interest in what Vernon and I are trying to do. As I think you know, we have asked a substantial number of people, scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, and serious thinkers of various kinds, to review our work. The most important of these reviewers, from my point of view, are those with sufficient training in mathematics and physics to be able to understand the basic concepts underlying Transcendental Physics and TDVP. These thinkers, one would hope, would be very open-minded and objective. However, based on the comments and statements of those who have responded to date, open-mindedness is quite rare. In, my opinion, those who have commented fall into of one the following categories:

1.)  Those who assume we don’t know what we are talking about. Their approach is to look for obvious errors and be done with us.

2.)  Those who have unconventional theories of their own. Their approach is to determine to what extent our ideas might support theirs. When they find at some point that they do not, they quickly lose interest.

3.)  Those with heavily vested interest in the so-called Standard Model. As with group #1, they search for any error at all to discredit our ideas because, if we are right, the paradigm they have invested their lives in must be wrong, and their life’s work is threatened. Our experience shows that they will do anything they can to defend the current paradigm.

4.)  Those who are truly open minded, as all scientists should be, and are willing to follow the logic of new ideas wherever it leads, even when the results conflict with their life’s work and/or their own belief system. So far, our experience is that such minds are very few and far between.

I have found that discussions with people in the first three categories are largely a waste of time. The first two have no interest in anything outside their own ideas, or ideas with which they are familiar, and people in the third group have no interest in anything outside the box of the current materialistic paradigm. I think you can probably identify some individuals in the discussions of the past couple of years who fall in to these categories. Two or three, for example, who sought to find flaws in the math, started by criticizing references to, and use of, some simple, basic mathematical concepts, but failed to understand the significance of these concepts in the new paradigm. Next, they offered counter examples to certain mathematical proofs and conclusions. When I pointed out flaws in their reasoning, they at first grudgingly admitted a mistake or two, and then got upset. One even told me that the discussion was not about criticizing his ideas. He even posted that he had “refuted” certain of my arguments, when it was easy to show that he had not.

I want to address your comments, but first, please permit me to recount a little more history to put the current discussions into proper perspective:

After studying the works of Planck, Einstein, Minkowski, Lorentz, Schrödinger, Bohr, and Heisenberg, while I was an undergrad physics student, I was convinced as early as 1956, that a theory of everything, even if it was defined only as a theory that would unify the known forces of nature, was not possible without including the actions of consciousness in the equations. I wrote about this around 1957 - 1959 or so. I also recognized that new math was needed, and that I needed to know more about number theory. I earned a degree in mathematics in 1962, and started in a graduate program in theoretical physics. I also found the basis for the new math I needed in George Spencer Brown’s ‘Laws of Form’ in 1962; coincidentally about the same time I studied John Bell’s inequality theorem and learned of Alain Aspect’s experimental resolution of the EPR paradox.

I developed the Calculus of Distinctions to deal with the interaction of consciousness and physical reality; and I first published some of the results of including consciousness in the equations in 1989 in “Infinite Continuity”. Prior to publication, I sent a copy of the manuscript to Stephen Hawking for review. He had a problem with the concept of three-dimensional time and rejected, out of hand the idea that consciousness had anything to do with reality at the quantum level.

I expanded some of the ideas, and published them again in ‘Transcendental Physics’ in 1996. My ideas were accepted and heralded as the new paradigm uniting relativity and quantum physics by several, including experimental physicist Dr. Henry Swift and astrophysicist Dr. Philip Anderson. It was discussed for months on the Karl Jaspers Forum and other internet forums and in the journal “Science within Consciousness” in the period 1996 – 1998. One participant suggested that I should be careful about sharing my ideas so freely on the internet, because “the ideas clearly represent a new paradigm, and unscrupulous individuals will steal them and call them their own.” Another participant quipped: “If you have something truly new, no one will steal it. You’ll have to cram it down their throats!” Unfortunately, the second comment proved to be the more accurate. Most people it seems, even scientists, believe that if they don’t understand something immediately, it must be wrong. As Max Planck said, “Science advances one funeral at a time.”

Now, on to your comments:  I am thankful for your comments because they give me an opportunity to more fully explain the concepts underlying the mathematics of TDVP. I will copy from your email and then respond:

You wrote:

“Here´s some new feedback, specifically about theoretical physics (or at least its required methods) within your theories, but not about the *whole* TDVP theory (except physics, possibly extended to broader, non-materialist realms), and especially about QM (again) in relation to your (or Ed's) 9 dim. Spin model:

When I first mentioned to you in some mails years ago theories with hidden

variables in QM (David Bohm), and now when you have a 9D spin model with apparently more detailed variables, I point to the necessity of QM again, or at least consistency with experiments.”

My response:

You refer to ‘hidden variables’. This term, as used in QM, refers to attempts by some physicists, notably David Bohm, Eugene Wigner, and a few others, to explain the non-locality quantum entanglement of Bell’s inequality and the EPR paradox in terms of underlying, inaccessible variables which, if there, would validate Einstein’s opinion that QM as developed by Bohr and Heisenberg was incomplete, and eliminate, theoretically, the probabilistic uncertainty formalized by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.

The additional variables of TRUE units in TDVP are in no way hidden variables of this sort. They are hidden only in the sense that they are not directly measurable. The magnitudes of TRUE units, including mass, energy and gimmel (the third form) for specific sub-atomic entities are all indirectly determinable, like many things in science. The amount of gimmel in a given particle does not affect the quantum uncertainty between the measurements of location and angular momentum any more than the amount of mass or energy in the particle does. Heisenberg’s relationship of probabilistic uncertainty is not affected by Gimmel, an indirectly measurable variable combining with units of mass and energy to make up the TRUE quantum units of all stable particles, and thus they are not ‘hidden’ variables in the sense proposed by Bohm, et al.

You wrote:

“I do not see how the use of integers only will improve consistency with the known QM framework and the experiments; there needs to be some randomization as well i -strongly-suspect. The reason is, like I posted, because of the (statistical nature of the) measurements.

My response:

Let me explain the importance of using integers in the analysis of the combination of elementary particles to form stable compound particles like protons and neutrons: Planck’s discovery that elementary particles are always integer multiples of a basic unit means that we are dealing with discrete, as opposed to continuous values in the statistical analysis of collider data. A discrete random variable has a very different probability distribution than a continuous random variable, and functions representing compound entities formed by the combination of integral numbers of basic units can only have integer values. This means we are dealing with equations with integer variables, known to mathematicians as Diophantine equations. I’ll elaborate on this more as I respond to your further comments.

You wrote:

In some way with some quantum logic Ed or your other math assistant might

be able to add this to this spin-model, in order to generate the most common

QM experiments, but it won't be easy.

My response:

This has already been done. And, while it wasn’t as difficult as you might imagine, it may be hard to grasp at first. This is actually what Dimensional Extrapolation with unitary extensions and integer solutions to the Conveyance Equations in TRUE units are all about. The 9-D spin model is an outcome of the mathematics, not the other way around.

You wrote:

“For the rest when describing physics at the Planck scale, just a 9D spin model is not enough of course, because it's not only *particle* spin,  there also is QM involved with (mass-less) *photons*, and in fact with a  whole  of other particles (some with rapid decay); called the particle 'zoo'. In fact the existence of most of these particles seems to come out of the quantum field theories inherent in the Standard Model, but that's another -and slightly broader- subject.”

My response:

Actually, the mathematics of TDVP accurately encompasses all known QM processes. The derivation of TRUE units is fully consistent with, and actually dependent upon the statistical nature of the quantum measurements of collider data. TDVP is also consistent with the existence of mass-less photons and the entire ‘particle zoo’. All of the particles detected in the debris from high-energy collisions decay under ‘normal’ conditions into photons, electrons and up- and down-quarks, the four sub-atomic entities that make up the physical structures of our everyday world. The other particles are teased into existence by high-energy collisions here on Earth, or are naturally produced in extreme conditions of heat and pressure like those in stellar processes. This becomes clear in the 9-D integral model. TRUE units describe the total mass/energy/consciousness composition of sub-atomic particles under normal conditions. Only the particle combinations with the TRUE unit values that satisfy integer solutions of the Conveyance Equation for n = m = 3, dictated by Fermat’s Last Theorem achieve symmetric stability.

You wrote:

“Now  I understand you or Ed have to start somewhere within the TDVP framework, i.e. with the 9D particle spin model, but then this would  only be a (minor) start, and certainly not a description or foundation of some 'new physics' or new paradigm in physics at large.”

My response:

As you might gather from my explanations above, I strongly disagree with this statement. While our presentations, as you say, must ‘start somewhere’, as a new paradigm, TDVP does not start with randomly chosen concepts. As a new paradigm must, it starts with proven fundamental mathematical and physical basics and expands them with new mathematics, new definitions and a new, more comprehensive theoretical framework, just as relativity and quantum mechanics did.in the early part of the last century.

Since 1935, there have been no paradigm-shifting new physics discoveries, only experimental and technological evidence of fields, particles and concepts that fit within the current materialistic paradigm. TDVP, on the other hand, with the inclusion of the action of consciousness, and detailed mathematical and dimensionometric applications of the Calculus of Distinctions, Dimensional Extrapolation and the Conveyance Equations, provides a new, expanded paradigm that not only encompasses and integrates known physics, chemistry, the life sciences, and verified paranormal phenomena, it provides answers and explanations for quantum and macro-scale phenomena not explained, or even explainable in the current paradigm.

You wrote:

Also i would like to come back on the subject of peer review (about stuff like

this 9D spin model) in the area of -theoretical-  *physics*.  … I would be more interested with which modern physicists you and-or Ed are talking in detail about the mathematical theories within your TDVP context.

My response:

We certainly agree about the importance of colleague review, and we have been eagerly seeking it for years. I have approached people like Stephen Hawking, Menos Kafatos, Henry Stapp, and Roger Penrose, and a number of mathematicians to get these ideas peer reviewed, and Vernon has approached many others. But finding qualified reviewers who are willing to spend their precious time reviewing something outside the box is easier said than done. See my comments above regarding the four categories of reviewers.

You continue:

This also because imho inventing workable validated theories in mathematical physics usually should not be much determined only by 'creativity' (although this may apply for generating hypotheses) but by having an understanding of experimental physics as w ell. Without the experiments, imho you are most of the  time  -in fact almost always-only  creating (highly) speculative 'theories' (in fact more  hypotheses  than theories); a well known fact in the philosophy of science btw, and mentioning things as new paradigms or being decades ahead of the others do not change such facts. NB it is not intended as (severe) criticism, but more as a suggestion how to continue the research and if also focus on the interconnections between your 'new physics' and the well-established older theories.

My response:

I certainly understand and appreciate this, as I’m sure Vernon does, but you apparently didn’t know that I’ve relied heavily on experimental physics in developing the mathematics.

You continued:

At least in your latest response on Ning you now seem to have acknowledged this, but then you also should admit that there is not much 'linkage' (yet?) between all the new ideas (including these TRUE units) with conventional 'fundamental' physics (apart from the periodic table, but that's not enough. Like i wrote earlier, in theoretical physics the quantum mechanics of the electron bands around the core (and the Pauli Exclusion Principle) are determining the periodic index; and also their reactivity with other elements. But that's another subject.  While it looks like an 'Eureka' experience finding such a new way of setting up the periodic table, together with some possible new findings, imho again more validation and verification is to be done to make it a workable theory instead of just a (wild) hypothesis.”

My response:

Again, you seem to be unaware of much of what we’ve published. As my previous discussion shows, there are multiple linkages between TDVP and fundamental physics, quantum mechanics and relativity. In addition to explaining why quarks combine in triads, the unique value of the Cabibbo angle, explaining the Periodic Table consistent with electron shell theory and Pauli’s exclusion principle, -but in much more detail-, explaining why fermions have an intrinsic spin number of ½, why photons, electrons, protons, and neutrons have the physical characteristics they do, and the quantization of angular momentum, as well as explaining non-locality and quantum entanglement, we are finding more links and explanations almost daily. If this doesn’t make TDVP “a workable theory instead of just a (wild) hypothesis”, I’d like to know what would.

You wrote:

About the methods used in general in your physics theories as part of your

Toe: maybe this '' C.O.D.' theory by Ed indeed is innovative new method which can be used in mathematical physics, to be recognized as such it should  be studied more in detail by others i suppose, and only then later it might be acknowledged as such.”

My response:

Unless you’ve read the published articles associated with “Reality Begins with Consciousness” and/or the posts on my Transcendental Physics blog, located at www.ERCloseTPhysics.com, you wouldn’t know that over the years, I have discussed the mathematical basis of Transcendental Physics and TDVP with a substantial number of professional mathematicians and mathematical physicists; I have approached at least fifty or sixty. I have documentation of many of these discussions in the form of letters and emails. Of these, only a handful, I believe 5 or 6 actually took the time to look at my work in any detail. The problem, as with getting reviewers for TDVP, is few are willing to invest much time to review anything outside the mainstream paradigm, especially if it involves new math. One professional mathematician, Dr. Vladimir Brandin, has endorsed CoD and used it in his studies of intelligence. We published one paper together:

Brandin V, Close ER: The calculus of dimensional distinctions: Elements of mathematical theory of intellect. Moscow: 2003.

Details of CoD and applications have been published in journal articles. We can supply copies if you want to see them.

I’d like to elaborate a bit more on the mathematical and dimensionometric bases of Transcendental Physics and TDVP for you by pointing out the difference between classical Aristotelian and Platonic reasoning as it pertains to mathematics and scientific research: Aristotelians see mathematics simply as a man-made tool, while Platonists see mathematics as symbolic reflections of an underlying reality. As such, the imperfect tools of human formulation can always be improved to more and more closely mimic and reveal the perfectly logical patterns of reality. I see the value of the Aristotelian point of view in technological and engineering applications, but I also subscribe to the Platonic point of view as valid in constructing a paradigm to illustrate the nature of reality.

To understand TDVP and the use of the CoD, I think it will be helpful for you to know that there are three basic concepts behind the mathematics of TDVP:

1.) There is a direct correlation between the structures of number theory and the structures of the universe. This is why even the most abstract mathematical theorem finds application in the real world sooner or later.

2.) The experimental resolution (Aspect, et al) of the EPR paradox implies consciousness involvement and non-locality. These features are explainable within the framework of a universe with more dimensions than the four of the space-time of Minkowski and Einstein (3S – 1T).

3.) Max Planck discovered that we live in a quantized universe, but mathematical physics has not been properly adjusted to accommodate this fact.

You may agree or disagree with basic concept #1. If you are primarily Aristotelian in your thinking, as many scientists are, you may see the correlation between the types of numbers and the measures of dimensions, as shown by Dimensional Extrapolation, as a remarkable coincidence. If you accept basic concept #1, you will agree that the correlations we’ve discovered are not coincidental.

Basic concept #2 by itself does not imply any specific number of discrete dimensions, but when combined with #1, a maximum number of nine finite orthogonal dimensions are derived.

Concerning basic concept #3, to adjust mathematical physics to a quantized universe, we must first recognize that the calculus of Newton and Leibniz does not apply at the quantum level because, for applications of differential and integral calculus to yield valid results, the domains of the variables involved must be continuous. In a quantized universe, distinctions of content, like mass, energy and consciousness, exist only in finite, discrete integer amounts, and, as we have shown in TDVP, the distinctions of extent, like space and time, are also limited to finite, discrete volumes due to the relativistic light-speed limitation on velocity.

So the dimensional domains of a quantized universe are not continuous. No variable in a quantized universe can approach zero infinitesimally closely, as it must be able to do for Newtonian calculus to yield valid results at the quantum scale. In TDVP, the infinitesimals of Newtonian calculus are replaced by the minimal distinctions of TRUE units, and the Calculus of Distinctions is the mathematical system I’ve developed to extend calculus to the sub-quark level. To be clear, the CoD does not replace Newtonian calculus at the macro scale; it extends calculation to the quark scale, analogous to the way relativity does not replace Newtonian physics at normal scales of measurement, and only comes to play in the vicinity of extremely massive objects, or when relative velocities are near light-speed.

In summary, contrary to the impressions you have portrayed in your email of Feb. 3, 2015, TDVP is, in fact a comprehensive new paradigm with new mathematics, allowing consciousness to be included in the equations of mathematical physics for the first time. This paradigm has explained a number of empirical observations not explained by the current paradigm. The new mathematics, rigorously defined in several published books and articles, reveals an existential nine-dimensional finite domain embedded in an infinite substrate which contains the blueprints of all of the stable forms that support life and consciousness in the universe. I have tried repeatedly since 1989 to obtain competent peer review, and Vernon and I have sought colleague review in every venue available to us over the past six years as we’ve continued to develop the new paradigm. If you have any questions or concerns, or require more detailed explanations, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Edward R. Close, PhD, PE, DISPE

CLARIFICATION OF DIMENSIONAL EXTRAPOLATION, EUCLIDEAN AND NON-EUCLIDEAN SPACE, AND THE DERIVATION OF TRUE UNITS

Clarification of Dimensional Extrapolation, euclidean AND NON-EUCLIDEAN SPACE, and THE DERIVATION OF TRUE units

To understand Dimensional Extrapolation and the nature of TRUE units, it is necessary to unlearn some of the things mainstream physicists think they know. The idea that mass warps space, which is generally accepted as implied by the Theory of Relativity, is one of those things. Einstein himself raised doubt about this when he said in his Note to the Fifteenth Edition of “Relativity, the Special and General Theory” June 9^th, 1852: “In this edition I have added, as a fifth appendix, a presentation of my views on the problem of space. … I wished to show that space-time is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe a separate existence. … Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way, the concept of ‘empty space’ loses its meaning.” If space-time does not exist apart from distinct objects, the idea that the 3-D space of our physical observations is warped by mass is, at best, a conceptual analogy that may be useful in helping us to grasp the idea of gravitational gradient in a four-dimensional domain. Is space-time warped by mass? If so, how can we measure the warping if the point from which we observe and measure it is also within the same warped space-time domain?

We exist in a dynamic multi-dimensional reality; but our physical senses only convey the information of one-, two- and three- dimensional conceptual images to our physical brains. We deduce the existence of a fourth dimension based on comparison of current observation with the memory, actually pictures stored in the present brain, of previous observations. Our observations are conceptually limited to one-, two- and three- dimensional slices of a dynamic multi-dimensional reality. “Dimensional Extrapolation” is the term I use for the process of rotation and extension that is necessary to move from an n-dimensional domain into an (n+1)-dimensional domain.

The necessary angle of rotation in the dimensional extrapolation needed to expand our awareness from a one-dimensional Euclidean domain (a line) to a two-dimensional Euclidean domain (a plane) is 90 degrees. This is because this amount of rotation places the extension equidistant in angular degrees from the two directions of freedom of movement in the one-dimensional domain. Similarly, the angle of rotation needed to expand our awareness from a plane, which is a two-dimensional Euclidean domain to a volumetric three-dimensional Euclidean domain is also 90 degrees, and in general, moving from any n-dimensional Euclidean domain into an (n+1)-dimensional Euclidean domain requires rotating a unitary extension to a point that is equiangular in rotation away from all of the dimensions of the n-dimensional domain. This angle of rotation for Euclidean domains is always 90 degrees, and the magnitude of the unitary projection from any n-dimensional domain into the (n+1)-dimensional domain is determined by using the Pythagorean Theorem. With the unitary orthogonal projections in the n-dimensional domain as sides of the Pythagorean triangle, the magnitude of the projection into the (n+1)-dimensional domain is calculated as the hypotenuse.

The Pythagorean equations are sub-sets of the expression described mathematically by Σ^k_i=1 (X_k)ⁿ = Zⁿ. where n = 1,2,3,…, the natural integers. The Pythagorean equations are obtained when k = n = 2, and two other important equations are obtained when k = 2 and n = 3, and when k = n = 3. Integer solutions to the first of these three equations, the Pythagorean equation, yield the Pythagorean triples. The lack of integer solutions to the second equation, proved by application of Fermat’s Last Theorem, and the integer solutions of the third equation prove to be of primary importance in determining how the stable structures of elementary particles are formed, as we shall see below. It is probable that other values of k and n will produce additional important equations useful in describing combinatorial relationships between particles in the quantized reality of the universe.

A second, related concept that requires unlearning is the idea that there is something called non-Euclidean space. The problem here arises from confusing dimensions of different types. While the dimensions of space and time are both measured in units of distinctions of extent, space domains and space-time domains are quantitatively and qualitatively different. First, let’s see how the dimensions of space and time are quantitatively different: When moving from a 1-dimensional Euclidean domain to a 2-dimensional Euclidean domain and from a 2-dimensional Euclidean domain to a 3-dimensional Euclidean domain, the units of extent are the same, i.e., they can be measured mathematically consistently in real numbers. But when moving from a 3-dimensional Euclidean domain to a 4-dimensional Euclidean domain, rotating 90 degrees away from all of the directions of freedom of the 3-dimensional domain, requires that the extension into the 4-dimensional domain is imaginary, i.e. a multiple of the square root of  minus one, as calculated using the Pythagorean Theorem.

Beyond and even more important than these problems with definitions and the basic logic of mathematical physics, is the failure to include the functioning of consciousness in the equations. Consciousness is intimately involved in our observations. Clarifying the fact that a non-Euclidean domain is only definable relative to the Euclidean domain of conscious observation provides an important step toward understanding how to put consciousness into the equations of mathematical physics.

The problem with the concept of non-Euclidean space as an existing reality is partly because of confusion due to poorly defined terminology, partly because of ignoring the role of consciousness, and partly because of the loss of detail in mathematical generalization. The Perception of a non-Euclidean dimensional domain is necessarily relative to the dimensional domain of the conscious observer. The qualitative differences between the observations of space and space-time domains exist because of the way we perceive reality through the limited physical senses and the way memory is stored in the neurological functions of the brain. Because the observation and measurement of a non-Euclidean domain is defined relative to the dimensional domain of the observer, it should be recognized as a relatively non-Euclidean domain. With these points in mind, we can no longer accept the assumption that space and time exist apart from, and without reference to consciousness.

Mathematicians have generalized the concept of space by considering Euclidean space as only one of many possible ‘spaces’ with different degrees of curvature. In that view, Euclidean space just happens to be the one with zero curvature. Three-dimensional Euclidean space, however, is the most important spatial domain in respect to all physical observations because it is the only space of observation available to our limited physical senses. It is, therefore, the only reference we have from which to define non-Euclidean dimensional domains. Three-dimensional Euclidean space is the natural arena of our physical observations and what we perceive as reality. And because the images of reality created by our physical brains are created within the limits of our physical observations, Euclidean space is the space of consciousness. The terminology can be improved by using the term ‘space’ for the three-dimensional domain only and Euclidean space as the space of reference for all observations.

When n ≠ 3, an n-dimensional domain, Euclidean or otherwise, can only be conceptualized in reference to the 3-dimensional Euclidean domain of our physical observations. For example, if a 2-dimensional plane is curved, i.e. non-Euclidean, its curvature can only be seen from the viewpoint of a 3-dimensional Euclidean domain. Similarly, the curvature of a non-Euclidean 4- or 5- dimensional domain can only be meaningfully measured and described from the viewpoint of our 3-dimensional Euclidean domain of observation. We know from Einstein’s relativity, validated many times by experimental evidence, that the measure of 1-dimensional time is distorted by relative velocity and mass. This means that the 4-dimensional space-time domain is observed as Euclidean or non-Euclidean, depending on the observer’s relative velocity and proximity to massive objects.

Thus ‘Space’ can only be defined unambiguously as the domain of the first three dimensions, within which, because of the limitations of our physical senses, all our physical observations are made. Through the physiological and the neurological processing of the data supplied by our senses, we perceive the 3-dimensional domain of the universe as Euclidean. In fact, if any part of the 3-dimensional domain of our observations is non-Euclidean, it can only be said to be non-Euclidean relative to the 3-dimensional domain of our conscious observations.

The very real differences, both perceptual and mathematical, between space and time domains are generally ignored by human beings, including scientists. They can be ignored without serious consequences in non-mathematical verbal descriptions when comparing one measurement of time with another, but ignoring them in the mathematical equations describing space-time-matter-energy relationships is problematic. This problem, in conjunction with the inappropriate application of Newtonian continuous calculus to discrete quantum phenomena, leads to virtually all of the so-called “weirdness” of quantum physics, as well as most of the apparent conflicts between quantum mechanics and relativity. So, while there may be many non-Euclidean domains relative to our Euclidean domain of observation, the three dimensional domain of space cannot be said to be existentially non-Euclidean.

Many of the problems of mathematical physics, unsolvable in the context of the current scientific paradigm, are relatively easily solved by the concepts presented here and by use of the Calculus of Distinctions, which is applicable where Newtonian calculus is not. Dr. Neppe and I have already published some of these solutions in the book “Reality Begins with Consciousness” (www.BrainVoyage.com) and in papers explaining the spin number of fermions, why quarks are always found combined in groups of three, and the Cabibbo mixing angle.

These problems with the current paradigm become paramount when dealing with the physics of elementary particles, starting with the quarks that make up the protons and neutrons of atomic structure. In a particle accelerator like the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), particles are accelerated to very high relative velocities and caused to collide, breaking compound particles apart into smaller particles. The mass and energy of the elementary particles flying away from a collision are deduced from three-dimensional snapshots of their apparent paths in a magnetic field. The fact that none of the measured amounts of the mass and energy of these elementary particles obtained in this manner are unitary, or even integer multiples of the unit commonly used, tells us that the unit being used is not the truly minimum sub-quantum unit.

We can determine the relative mass and energy of the minimal elementary particle unit by normalizing the mass and energy of electrons and quarks.  Because of the relativistic light-speed limit to rotational velocity, using the mass of the minimal elementary particle, the electron, and its angular momentum, we are able to determine the minimum possible volume occupied by any elementary particle. Finally, setting the minimal mass-energy and minimal volume to unity (+1), we define the truly minimal unit, the proper unit with which to measure all physical phenomena. Defined in this way, all physical particles will be integer multiples of this sub-quantal unit. Because this sub-quantal basic unit is derived from the existence of a minimal-volume high-velocity rotating particle, and all particles are integer multiple of it, I call it the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence, or TRUE Unit for short.

Given that the stable sub-atomic elementary particles, i.e. electrons and quarks, are high-velocity symmetrically spinning objects, we look at how they must combine to form compound symmetrically spinning objects. The reason symmetry is so important here is because asymmetric objects spinning at angular velocities approaching the speed of light would quickly fly apart because the centrifugal forces of angular momentum, unequal on opposing sides of the spinning object would pull it apart. Thus, the second law of thermodynamics, operating on all particles combining due to the attractions of opposite electrical charges and/or magnetic attraction, would cause any randomly-occurring asymmetric combination to decay almost immediately back to maximum entropy. This means that the complex physical universe as we know it cannot have evolved accidentally from flotsam from a giant explosion however many billions of years ago.

Normalized particle collider data tells us that up-quarks are made up of 4 of the minimum mass-energy-volume units described above, and down-quarks are made up of 9 minimal units. Applying Fermat’s Last Theorem to the equation resulting when k = 2 and n = 3, in the expression Σ^k_i=1 (X_k)ⁿ = Zⁿ,  tells us that two symmetric objects made up of any integer multiples of the minimum mass-energy-volume unit cannot combine to form a new symmetric object because there are no integer solutions to (X₁)³ + (X₂)³ = Z³. On the other hand, the equation (X₁)³ + (X₂)³ + (X₃)³ = Z³, obtained when k = n = 3, has integer solutions.

Noting that Einstein’s E=mc² , validated by empirical data, proved that mass and energy are two forms of the same thing, we deduce that there has to be a third form of  reality, not measurable as mass or energy, producing stable, symmetric triadic particles. This is why under the normal conditions existing in the universe of our observational domain quarks are always seen in triadic combinations: two up-quarks and one down-quark form a proton, and one up-quark and two down quarks form a neutron.

The number of units of the third form needed to form symmetrically stable quarks, protons and neutrons are uniquely determined from the integer solutions of the equation obtained from the general expression Σ^k_i=1 (X_k)ⁿ  = Zⁿ, when k = n = 3.

Because of the continuing discovery of the relationship of the mathematical structure (rings, fields, etc.) of numbers studied in the discipline called number theory, to the structure of the observable universe, I believe that our discoveries strongly suggest that reality consists of the three forms of distinctions of content interacting in nine finite dimensions of extent: three dimensions of space, three dimensions of time, and three dimensions of consciousness, all contained and pervaded by a conscious transfinite substrate. The logical mathematical patterns of the conscious transfinite substrate are conveyed to the 3-dimensional subdomain of our observations by the expression Σ^k_i=1 (X_k)ⁿ  = Zⁿ. For this reason, I call this the Conveyance Expression and equations derived from it Conveyance Equations.

Experimental data tell us that the Hydrogen atom is unique, being the only element that consists simply of one electron and one proton; but Fermat’s Last Theorem tells us that this combination is asymmetric, and would therefore be extremely unstable, and would not exist long enough to form the universe we perceive without the addition of a particle composed entirely of units of the third form.

When we determine the number of units of the third form needed to stabilize the Hydrogen atom, and apply this analysis to all of the elements of the Periodic Table, we find that the most stable and most abundant elements in the universe are those that support life and sentient beings. Furthermore, gaps in symmetry that are found existing within the Periodic Table as we have known it, are filled by compounds prominent in amino acids and molecules of DNA and RNA, the building blocks of conscious life forms.

This fits nicely with our hypothesis that the third form of the substance of reality is the original primary form of consciousness itself, guiding the formation of a universe able to sustain life forms that are capable of experiencing consciousness. It also appears that the ratio of the third form to the mass/energy substance, based on abundance of life-sustaining elements in the universe and Hubble Telescope data, conforms with the conjecture that dark matter and dark energy are also composed of the third form.

Perhaps the most important, and consequently also the most controversial aspect of this analysis, is the unavoidable conclusion that consciousness in its primary form has always existed, and will always exist, in the quantized, relativistic universe that we experience, and that life, fully capable of supporting ever-existing consciousness, is the purpose of the physical universe.