SHADES OF THE FLAT EARTH SOCIETY

IS YOUR WORLD FLAT OR FAT?

Most who frequent this blog are probably wondering why I would spend any time on this subject. Doesn’t everyone know that the Earth is an oblate spheroid spinning in space and revolving around the sun? No, apparently everyone does not know this. The main reason that I decided to discuss the Flat Earth Hypothesis here is because I like to encourage people to think for themselves, to use the intelligence God (or the Universe, depending upon the semantics you like to use to refer to Reality) has given them. And, yes, I said the ‘Flat Earth Hypothesis’. It actually is a scientific hypothesis because in can be proved or disproved by observation, measurement and mathematical logic. It actually meets the criteria for a legitimate scientific hypothesis. So let’s start with a little historical background.

The flat Earth hypotheses originated in modern times with the English writer Samuel Rowbotham (1816–1884). Rowbotham published a 16-page pamphlet, Zetetic Astronomy, which he later expanded into a 430-page book, Earth Not a Globe, in which he described the Earth as a round, flat disc with the North Pole as its center. He claimed that the disc was bounded by a wall of ice, known as Antarctica, with the Sun and Moon only 3,000 miles above the Earth and the stars 3,100 miles above Earth.  He also declared that the "Bible, alongside our senses, supported the idea that the Earth was flat and immovable and this essential truth should not be set aside for a system based solely on human conjecture”. Rowbotham created a Zetetic Society in England and New York, publishing over a thousand copies of Zetetic Astronomy.

After Rowbotham's death, one of his followers, Lady Elizabeth Blount, established a Universal Zetetic Society. The society published a magazine, The Earth Not a Globe Review, and remained active until around 1910. A flat Earth journal, Earth: a Monthly Magazine of Sense and Science, was published between 1901and1904, edited by Lady Blount.

The first organization to use the title ‘Flat Earth society’ was the International Flat Earth Research Society (IFERS), founded by Englishman Samuel Shenton in 1956. Shenton died in 1971, and from 1972 until 2001, The IFERS was headed by Charles Johnson, an American. The belief lacked representation after Johnson’s death in 2001, until the name was reclaimed in 2004 by Daniel Shenton, an American from Virginia now reportedly living in Hong Kong.

Members of the Flat Earth Society argue that all photographic evidence of a spherical Earth is faked by NASA and the world’s governments for monetary reasons. Could the photos be faked? Sure. Hollywood’s computer-generated realities can make anything we can imagine look real.  

TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS

Is the Earth really flat? Let’s look at the evidence:

Samuel Rowbotham waded into the Old Bedford River in the summer of 1838 and held a telescope just eight inches above the water level to watch a boat with a five-foot mast row slowly away from him. He knew that if surface of the Earth is curved, the water surface would be curved according to the accepted circumference of a spherical earth, and the boat should slowly descend as it moved away from him on the curved surface, until even the top of the mast should be below his line of sight.

Rowbotham reported that the entire vessel remained constantly in his view for the full six miles, all the way to Welney Bridge, which would indicate a flat Earth. He repeated this experiment several times, but his claims that the Earth is flat were ignored by the scientists of the day, until, in 1870, one of his supporters, John Hampden offered a wager that he could prove to anyone, by repeating Rowbotham's experiment, that the earth was flat. A famous naturalist and professional surveyor, Alfred Russell Wallace, accepted the wager. Wallace, with surveyor's training and knowledge of basic optics knew that Rowbotham may have made a mistake by setting his telescope too close to the water’s surface allowing the boat to be visible because of atmospheric refraction in the humid air just above the river’s surface.

Wallace avoided this by setting his line of sight 13 feet above the water, to avoid the effects of atmospheric refraction. The boat was then seen to be slowly descending below the line of sight as it moved away, because of the curvature of the surface of the Earth. The referees for the wager who held the money involved, declared Wallace the winner and awarded him Hampden’s money, and Hampden promptly sued, claiming that Wallace had cheated. Several versions of the experiment were subsequently carried out by various people, including Lady Blount with various results. Both sides accused the other side of cheating, Hampden wound up in jail for threatening to kill Wallace, and the controversy raged on for years. The public loved the controversy and as a result, Lady Blount and her followers sold a lot of magazines, and the Flat Earth Society was born.

Why did Rowbotham devise his experiment in the first place? Galileo’s sun-centered solar system had been validated by astronomers like Johannes Kepler, and Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion were already known 200 years before Rowbotham’s experiment, and in addition, Newton’s, laws generalizing and confirming planetary physics had been published about 100 years before the Bedford River Level experiments. All of this rigorous physics and astronomy required a spherical or nearly spherical Earth. It appears that Rowbotham was motivated by religious belief.

In tracing the historical origin of the Flat Earth Society, we’ve uncovered evidence that the understanding that the Earth was shaped like a ball like the other planets preceded the Flat Earth hypothesis by hundreds of years, but was there any simple direct proof? The answer is: Yes, there was, and it was even much, much earlier; at least 2,245 years ago!

According to a papyrus scroll from 230 B.C. :

Greek Librarian, Eratosthenes, Calculates the Diameter of the Earth!

Alexandria, Egypt: The Honorable Chief Librarian of the Ancient Library, Eratosthenes, peered into a well here at noon and came up with the diameter and circumference of the Earth! He did it with measurements made during the summer solstice in Alexandria and Syene.

Did Eratosthenes come up with it himself, or did the idea that the Earth is a spherical planet go back even farther? Eratosthenes had access to the largest known depository of knowledge in the world at that time. Could it be that he found the information in a book that was already centuries old at that time? We may never know, but somehow he figured out that he could calculate the Earth's circumference. His method is simple, requiring no advanced equipment or mathematics.

 So we can prove the Earth is a sphere using a simple formula that's over 2,200 years old!

He calculated the circumference of the Earth using the following method: It was general knowledge that on the summer solstice, the longest day of the year, at midday, the sun above Syene, Egypt, would be directly overhead. The day of the solstice could be determined by looking into a well, because the sun illuminated the bottom of a vertical well only during the solstice. So on the summer solstice, he measured the shadow cast by a vertical pole in Alexandria and saw that at noon the sun missed being directly overhead by about 7.2° angle.

   

The following figure shows how Eratosthenes's earth measurement worked.

Eratosthenes divided 360° by 7.2° and got 50, which told him that the distance between Alexandria and Syene (500 miles) was 1/50 of the total distance around the Earth. So he multiplied 500 by 50 and concluded that the Earth's circumference was about 25,000 miles. The distance around the Earth at the equator has been accurately measured as 24,901 miles.

You can use Eratosthenes’ method to measure the circumference of the Earth yourself, if you want. You will need to measure, as accurately as you can, the length of the shadows cast by two straight poles that are a few hundred miles north and south of each other at the same time on the same day. You can measure at one location and have a friend measure at the other, or you can travel and make all of the measurements yourself. If you make the measurements at the same time of day on consecutive days, the difference of the angle on consecutive days will be less than the margin of error in the measurements.

Make the measurements at local noon.  You can do this by looking in the local paper for the time of sunrise and sunset - local noon is half way between these times.

Be sure that the pole is vertical.  Record both the length of the pole and the length of the shadow.

You can measure the angle either by making a drawing to scale of the poles and shadows and measuring the angle with a protractor, or by using trigonometry. Once you have the angle, you can easily calculate the Earth’s circumference as follows:

The angle of separation of the two points on the Earth is to 360° as the distance between them is to the circumference of the Earth.

(Angle of Separation)/360° = (Distance Between Points)/(Earth’s Circumference)

 Then by simple transposition,

Earth’s Circumference[EC1]  = (Distance between Points x 360°)/(Angle of Separation)

If you do this carefully and measure as accurately as you can, your calculation of the Earth’s circumference will be very close to the number Eratosthenes obtained.

SEEING IS BELIEVING

Is there any other easy proof that the Earth is spherical? Here are some personal observations:

There are some very flat places on the Earth. Like Kansas. Driving across Kansas and sailing across the ocean have something in common. In both cases, you can only see something on the ocean, or on the plains about 21 miles away. Why is this? Is it because our eyes can only see that far? No, because on a cloudless night, we can see all the way to the moon! Is it because of atmospheric density? No, because we can see the Rocky Mountains as much as 100 miles away, because of their height. We don’t see the town that is only 25 or 30 miles away because it is hidden from straight line sight by the curvature of the Earth.

A few years ago, on a Lufthansa flight, I flew from San Francisco California to Frankfurt Germany over the polar route. I left San Francisco about 9:00 PM. It was a clear night and I could see the moon reflected in lakes and streams even from 30,000 plus feet, about six miles high. We went over several states, part of Canada and Nova Scotia, Greenland and Iceland, down over Scotland, and into the heart of Europe. Somewhere after Iceland, the sun came up in the northeast, moved along the horizon for a few hours, and dipped down below the horizon again in the northwest. I cannot explain what I saw if the Earth is a flat disc as hypothesized by the Flat Earth Society. If the Earth is an oblate spheroid, I can explain it.

Also, the Earth can’t be a disc with the North Pole in the center and Antarctica as a wall of ice around the southern edge of the disc, because if this were true, sailing or flying around the ice wall would be an extremely long trip, a distance much greater than the distance around the equator, if the Earth is flat. But the continent of Antarctica has been circumnavigated 10 times since 1772, and best estimate of the distance around the continent, is a mere 8,000 miles, much less than the trip around the equator, not the nearly 40,000 miles it should be if the Earth were flat.

It is also important to note that the distance around the equator is, within the margin of error, the exact same as the circumference of a spherical Earth calculated by Eratosthenes!

The similar opposing wind patterns over the north and south hemispheres, unexplained by a flat disc Earth, also fit very well with a spinning spheroid Earth.

I have noticed that many people will believe whatever they want regardless of the facts. Think about politicians, for example. I also know that some people like to take the other side of any idea, however obvious, and argue as if the contrary position is the truth. It is no wonder that there are intelligent people out there who still don’t believe the theory of relativity, when something as obviously goofy as the Flat Earth hypothesis can still gain supporters.

---

 [EC1]

THE SIMPLE MATH OF TRUE UNITS

THE ELEMENTARY MATH OF TRUE UNITS

ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND UNITS OF MEASUREMENT

In order to see how the minimal quantum extent and content of our smallest possible elementary distinction relates to known elementary particles, we develop equations that can be used to describe the combination of up- and down-quarks to form the proton and neutron of the Hydrogen atom. We choose the Hydrogen atom to start with because it is the simplest, most stable, and most abundant known element in the universe. If all forms of substance are quantized, then in order for quarks to combine in stable structures, they must satisfy the Diophantine (integer) forms of the equations of Dimensional Extrapolation conveying the logic of the transfinite substrate into the space-time domain of our experience. This family of Diophantine equations is represented mathematically by the expression

Σⁿ_i=1 (X_n)^m = Z^m.

The Pythagorean Theorem equation, the Fermat’s Last Theorem equation and other important equations are contained within this general expression. We mention this fact here because these theorems play key roles in the geometry and mathematics of Dimensional Extrapolation and the combination of elementary particles to form stable physical structures. Because the various forms of this expression as m varies from 3 to 9 conveys the geometry of 9-dimensional reality to our observational domain of 3S-1t, we call this expression the “Conveyance Expression”, and individual equations of the expression ”Conveyance Equations”.

 When n = m = 2, the expression yields the equation

(X₁)² + (X₂)² = Z²

which, when related to areas, describes the addition of two square areas, A₁ and A₂ with sides equal to X₁ and X₂ respectively, to form a third area, A₃, with sides equal to Z.  When these squares are arranged in a plane with two corners of each square coinciding with corners of the other squares to form a right triangle, we have a geometric representation of the familiar Pythagorean Theorem demonstrating that the sum of the squares of the sides of any right triangle is equal to the square of the third side (the hypotenuse) of that triangle.

We use this simple equation in Dimensional Extrapolation to define the rotation and orthogonal projection from one dimensional domain into another, in the plane of the projection. There are an infinite number of solutions for this equation, one for every conceivable right triangle, but in a quantized reality, we are only concerned with the integer solutions. Considering the Pythagorean equation as a Diophantine equation, we find that there exists an infinite sub-set of solutions with AB = X₁, BC = X₂ and AC = Z equal to integers. Members of this subset, e.g. (3,4,5), (5,12,13), (8,15,17), etc. i.e., (3² + 4² = 5², . 5² + 12² = 13², 8² + 15² = 17², … ) are called “Pythagorean triplets”.

To describe the combination of two three-dimensional particles, we have the Conveyance equation when n = 2 and m = 3:

(X₁)³ + (X₂)³ = Z³.

When we define X₁, X₂ and Z as measures of volumes, just as we defined them as measures of areas when n = m = 2, we can apply this equation to quantal volumes in a three-dimensional domain. Using the minimal quantal volume of the electron as the unit of measurement, and setting it equal to one, we have a Diophantine equation related to our hypothetical elementary particle with minimal spinning volume containing uniform substance: if it is spherical, we can set its radius equal to r₁, and if there is a second uniform spinning particle rotating at maximum velocity, with radius r₂, we can describe the combination of the two particles by the expression 4/3π(r₁)³ + 4/3π(r₂)³. If this combination produces a third spinning spherical object we have:

4/3π(r₁)³ + 4/3π(r₂)³ = 4/3π(r₃)³,

where r₃ is the radius of the new particle. Dividing through by 4/3π, we have:

(r₁)³ + (r₂)³ = (r₃)³, which is a Diophantine equation of the form of the Fermat equation,

X^m + Y^m = Z^m when m =3.

Notice that the factor, 4/3π cancels out, indicating that this equation is obtained regardless of the shape of the particles, as long as the shape and substance is the same for all three particles. (This is an important fact because we found in investigating the Cabibbo angle that the electron, while symmetrical, is not necessarily spherical.) Note also, that the maximum rotational velocity and angular momentum will be different for particles with different radii, because the inertial mass of each particle will depend upon its total volume. In a quantized reality, the radii must be integer multiples of the minimum quantum length. Since this equation is of the same form as Fermat’s equation, Fermat’s Last Theorem tells us that if r₁ and r₂ are integers, r₃ cannot be an integer. This means that the right-hand side of this equation, representing the combination of two quantum particles, cannot be a symmetric quantum particle. But, because Planck’s principle of quantized energy and mass tells us that no particle can contain fractions of mass and/or energy units, the right-hand side of the equation represents an unstable asymmetric spinning particle. The combined high-velocity angular momentum of the new particle will cause it to spiral wildly and fly apart. This may lead us to wonder how it is that there are stable particles in the universe, and why there is any physical universe at all. Again, we are faced with Leibniz’s most important question: why is there something instead of nothing?

The answer turns out to be relatively simple, but is hidden from us by the limitations of our methods of thinking and observation if we allow them to be wholly dependent upon our physical sense organs. For example, we think of a sphere as the most perfect symmetrical object; but this is an illusion. Spherical objects can exist in a Newton-Leibniz world, but we actually exist in a Planck-Einstein world. In the real world, revealed by Planck and Einstein, the most perfectly spherical object in three dimensions is a regular polyhedron. (polyhedron = multi-sided three-dimensional form; regular; all sides are of equal length.) The most easily visualized is the six-sided regular polyhedron, the cube. In the Newton-Leibniz world, the number of sides of a regular polynomial could increase indefinitely. If we imagine the number of sides increasing without limit while the total volume approaches a finite limit, the object appears to become a sphere. But in the quantized world of Planck and Einstein, the number of sides possible is limited, because of the finite size of the smallest possible unit of measurement (which we are defining here) is relative to the size of the object. And because the “shape” factor cancels in the Conveyance Equation for n = 3, Fermat’s Last Theorem tells us that, regardless of the number of sides, no two regular polyhedrons composed of unitary quantum volumes can combine to form a third regular polyhedron composed of unitary quantum volumes.

To help understand the physical implications of this, suppose our true quantum unit exists in the shape of a cube. Using it as a literal building block, we can maintain particle symmetry by constructing larger cubes, combining our basic building blocks as follows: a cube with two blocks on each side contains 8 blocks; a cube with three blocks on each side contains 27 blocks; a cube with four blocks on each side contains 64 blocks; etc. Fermat’s Last Theorem tells us that if we stack the blocks of any two such symmetric forms together, attempting to keep the number of blocks on all sides the same, the resulting stack of blocks will always be at least one block short, or one or more blocks over the number needed to form a perfect cube. Recall that if these blocks are elementary particles, they are spinning with very high rates of angular velocity, and the spinning object resulting from combining two symmetric objects composed of unitary quantum volumes will be asymmetric, causing its increasing angular momentum to throw off any extra blocks until it reaches a stable, symmetrically spinning form.

This requirement of symmetry for physical stability creates the intrinsic dimensionometric structure of reality that is reflected in the Conveyance Expression. It turns out that there can be stable structures, because when n = m =3, the Conveyance Expression yields the equation:

(X₁)³ + (X₂)³ + (X₃)³= Z³,

which does have integer solutions. The first one (with the smallest integer values) is:

3³ + 4³ + 5³= 6³

It is important to recognize the implications of Σⁿ_i=1 (X_n)^m = Z^m. When n, m, the X_i and Z are integers, is an exact Diophantine expression of the form of the logical structure of the transfinite substrate as it is communicated to the 3S-1t domain. For this reason, we call it the Conveyance Expression. It should be clear that the Diophantine equations yielded by this expression are appropriate for the mathematical analysis of the combination of unitary quantum particles. When the Diophantine expressions it yields are equations with integer solutions, they represent stable combinations of quantum equivalence units, and when they do not have integer solutions, the expressions are inequalities representing asymmetric, and therefore, unstable structures.

In the quantized nine-dimensional domains of TDVP, the variables of the Conveyance Equations are necessarily integers, making them Diophantine equations, because only the integer solutions represent quantized combinations. When n = m = 2, we have the Pythagorean Theorem equation for which the integer solutions are the Pythagorean Triples. When n = 3 and m = 2, the Conveyance Equation yields the inequality of Fermat’s Last Theorem, excluding binomial combinations from the stable structures that elementary particles may form. On the other hand, the Diophantine Conveyance Expression when n = m = 3, integer solutions produce trinomial combinations of elementary particles that will form stable structures. This explains why there is something rather than nothing, and why quarks are only found in combinations of three.

Embedded within the transfinite substrate are three dimensions of space and three dimensions of time that are temporarily contracted during observations, and condensed into the distinctions of spinning energy (energy vortices) that form the structure of what we perceive as the physical universe. In the humanly observable domain of 3S-1t, this spectrum ranges from the photon, which is perceived as pure energy, to the electron, with a tiny amount of inertial mass (0.51 MeV/c² ≈ 1 x10^-47 kg.) to quarks ranging from the “up” quark at about 2.4 MeV/c², to the “top” quark at about 1.7 x10⁵ MeV/c², to the Hydrogen atom at about 1x10⁹ MeV/c² (1.67 x10^-27kg.), to the heaviest known element, Copernicum (named after Nicolaus Copernicus) at 1.86 x10^-24kg . So the heaviest atom has about 10²³ times, that is, about 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times heavier than the inertial mass of the lightest particle, the electron. All of the Elements of the Periodic Table are made up of stable vortical distinctions that are known as fermions, “particles” with an intrinsic angular spin of 1/2, or they are made up of combinations of fermions. Table One, above, lists the fermions that make up the Hydrogen atom and their parameters of spin, charge and mass based on experimental data.

Bohr’s solution of the EPR paradox, validated by the Aspect experiment and many subsequent experiments refined to rule out other possible explanations, tells us that newly formed fermions do not exist as localized particles until they impact irreversibly on a receiver constituting an observation or measurement. In the TDVP unified view of reality, every elementary particle, every distinct entity in the whole range of particles apparently composed of fermions, is drawn from the continuous transfinite substrate of reality when it is registered as a finite distinction in an observation or measurement. Our limitations of observation and measurement and the dimensional structure of reality result in our perception of fermions as separate objects with different combinations of inertial mass and energy. What determines the unique mix that makes up each type of observed particle? To answer this question, we must continue our investigation of the rotation of the minimum quantal units across the four dimensions of space, time and the additional dimensions revealed by the mathematics of TDVP.

One of the most important invariant relationships between dimensional domains is the fact that each n-dimensional domain is embedded in an n+1 dimensional domain. This means that all distinctions of extent, from the ninth-dimensional domain down, and the distinctions of content within them, are inextricably linked by virtue of being sequentially embedded. Because of this intrinsic linkage, the structure of any distinction with finite extent and content, from the smallest particle to the largest object in the universe, reflects patterns existing in the logical structure of the transfinite substrate. Such a distinct object will always have in its content, combinations of the forms reflecting those patterns. In a quantized reality, the dimensionometric forms of such objects will be symmetric and a multiple of the smallest unit of measurement,

STABLE VORTICAL FORMS AND TRUE QUANTAL UNITS

Chemists trained in the current paradigm think of the combination of elementary particles and elements as forming atoms and molecules by the physical bonding of their structures, and model these combinations in tinker-toy fashion with plastic or wooden spherical objects connected by single or double cylindrical spokes. This is helpful for visualizing molecular compounds in terms of their constituents prior to combining, but that is not necessarily what actually happens. Inside a stable organic molecule, volumetrically symmetric atoms are not simply attached; their sub-atomic spinning vortical “particles” combine, forming a new vortical object. Elementary particles are rapidly spinning symmetric vortical objects and when three of them combine in proportions that satisfy the three-dimensional Conveyance Equation, they do not simply stick together - they combine to form a new, dimensionally stable, symmetrically-spinning object. Because they are spinning in more than one plane, these objects are best conceived of as closed vortical solitions.

The triadic combinations of elementary vortical objects, like up- and down-quarks, form new vortical objects called protons and neutrons; the combinations of electrons, protons and neutrons form new vortical objects called elements; and the triadic combinations of volumetrically symmetric elements form new vortical objects called organic molecules. Thus, the dimensional forms of symmetrically-spinning objects formed by the combining of smaller vortical objects form closed vortices in 3S-1t with new physical and chemical characteristics, depending upon both their internal and external structure. We will take the volume of the smallest possible quantized vortical object as the basic unit of measurement as the true quantal unit.

THE TRUE UNIT, THE CONVEYANCE EQUATION AND THE THIRD FORM OF REALITY

Conceptually, the true quantum unit in TDVP is therefore a sub-quark unitary extent/content entity spinning in the mathematically required nine dimensions of quantized reality. When we choose to measure the substance of a quantum distinction, the effects of its spinning in the three planes of space register as inertia or mass, spin in the time-like dimensional planes manifests as energy, and spinning in the additional planes of reality containing the space and time domains, requires a third form of the stuff of reality, in addition to, but not registering as either mass or energy, to complete the minimum quantum volume required for the stability of that distinct object. Because this third form of the stuff of reality is unknown in current science, we need an appropriate symbol to represent it. Every letter in the English and Greek alphabets has been used as a symbol for something in math and science, so we have gone to the historically earlier Phoenician-Aramaic-Hebrew alphabet. We will represent that potential third form of reality here with the third letter of the Aramaic alphabet, ג (Gimel), and we will call the sub-quark unitary measure of the three forms of reality the Triadic Rotational Unit of Equivalence, or TRUE Unit.

The mix of the three forms, m, E and ג, needed to maintain symmetric stability, present in any given 3S-1t measurement, will be determined by the appropriate Conveyance Equation, as demonstrated below. When n = m = 3, Σⁿ_i=1 (X_n)^m = Z^m yields:

(X₁)³ + (X₂)³ + (X₃)³= Z³

The integer solutions of this Diophantine equation in TRUE units represent the possible combinations of three symmetric vortical distinctions forming a fourth three-dimensional symmetric vortical distinction.

THE PRIMARY LEVEL OF SYMMETRIC STABILITY – QUARKS

With the appropriate integer values of X₁, X₂, X₃, and Z, in TRUE units, this equation represents the stable combination of three quarks to form a Proton or Neutron. There are many integer solutions for this equation and historically, methods for solving it were first developed by Leonhard Euler ^ref. The smallest integer solution of this Conveyance Equation is 3³ + 4³ + 5³= 6³.

Trial Combination of Two Up-Quarks and One Down-Quark, i.e.

The Proton, With Minimal TRUE Units

Particle	Charge*	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	MREV**
u1	+ 2	4	-1	3	27
u2	+ 2	4	0	4	64
d	- 1	9	-4	5	125
Total	+ 3	17	-5	12	216=63

* For consistency in a quantized reality, charge has also been normalized in these tables.

^** Minimum Rotational Equivalent Volume (MREV)

If we attempt to use the smallest integer solution, 3³ + 4³ + 5³= 6³, to find the appropriate values of ג for the Proton, we obtain negative values for ג for the first up-quark and the down-quark and zero for the second up-quark. It is conceivable that some quarks may contain no ג units, but negative values are a problem, because a negative number of total ג units would produce an entity with fewer total TRUE units than the sum of mass/energy units of that entity, violating the conservation of mass and energy, destroying the particle’s equilibrium and identity. When we try to use the smallest integer solution of the conveyance equation to describe the combination of one up-quark and two down-quarks in a neutron, all of the quarks have negative ג units. See the table below:

Trial Combination of One Up-Quark and Two Down-Quarks in TRUE Units

Particle	Charge	Mass/Energy	ג	Total TRUE Units	MREV
u	+ 2	4	-1	3	27
d1	- 1	9	-5	4	64
d2	- 1	9	-4	5	125
Totals	0	22	-10	12	216=63

---

WHY IS TDVP, MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN ANY OTHER PARADIGM?

WHY IS TDVP, THE CLOSE-NEPPE SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM, DIFFERENT FROM, AND MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN ANY OTHER PARADIGM?

1. No other scientific theory succeeds in putting consciousness into the equations describing reality.

This is made possible in TDVP by using the Calculus of Distinctions, a mathematical, geometrical logical system designed from first principles.

2. No other theory integrates relativity and quantum physics in a truly basic quantum unit of equivalence, the TRUE quantum unit of measurement.

This is done by applying basic principles of relativity and quantum physics and the equation E=mc² to the combination of integer multiples of elementary particles spinning in the multiple dimensions of a reality with nine finite mathematical dimensions.

3. No other theory leads to the discovery of the existence of a third form of reality necessary for symmetric stability and the existence of every atom of the physical universe. We call this third form ‘gimmel’.

There could be no meaning, purpose or stable structure in the physical universe without this third form of the substance of reality that is not directly measurable as matter or energy as physical force. 

4. TDVP proves that the physical universe is a reflection of the logical patterns of Primary Consciousness for the express purpose of supporting intelligent life.

Proof of this lies in the fact that gimmel, reflecting the logic of the third form, had to to be present from the beginning for there to be a physical universe, and that the elements that are necessary for life have the greatest amount of gimmel in them, and are the most abundant elements in the universe.

The beauty of it is that, although discovered through the application of the calculus of distinctions to matter, energy and consciousness, the existence of gimmel is easily proved with mathematics no more complicated than high school or entry level college algebra!

ERC 01/02/2016

Detailed desriptions of Transcendental Physics and TDVP with derivations and applications of TRUE unit analysis

HOW TDVP RESOLVES PROBLEMS THAT THE CURRENT SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM CANNOT

BIG PROBLEMS RESOLVED

There are a number of unresolved problems that have puzzled scientists for decades. These are empirical observations and measurements that are not explained by the Standard Model, the materialistic scientific paradigm of mainstream physics today. We (Neppe and Close) have presented a paradigm shift to the TDVP, a theory including the interaction of consciousness with physical reality, a theory that solves these problems. Applying the principles of TDVP over the past couple of years, we have discovered new concepts and solved a long list of problems.

Past paradigm shifts, like relativity and quantum physics, were ridiculed by mainstream scientists at first, but were eventually accepted because they solved problems and explained things that the existing theories could not, and predicted things that could be validated by experiment. We are at that point now with TDVP.

Just like relativity explained the observed aberration of the orbit of the planet Mercury from the path predicted by Newtonian physics, and quantum physics explained Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, TDVP explains many heretofore unexplained experimental observations and theoretical paradoxes. And, we are excited by the fact that we are making new discoveries answering scientific conundrums almost daily!

Here is a list of seven problems that are resolved by the application of TRUE Unit Analysis in TDVP, the consciousness-based scientific paradigm:

PROBLEMS SOLVED

1.  Why the elementary subatomic particles protons and neutrons are made up of three quarks, not two or some number other than three.

2.  Why the particles making up ordinary matter have ½ spin numbers.

3.  Why the Cabibbo mixing angle of quarks has the specific value determined from experimental evidence.

4.  Why protons and neutrons have so much more effective mass than the sum of three quarks.

5.  Why do mainstream scientists consider quantum phenomena ‘weird’?

6.   Why all elementary particles behave as if they were spherical

7.  Why there is something, as opposed to nothing.

In addition to solving problems that cannot be resolved with the current paradigm, the new paradigm indicates probable solutions to some even more major cosmological problems:

PREDICTED SOLUTIONS

1.  The Nature of Dark Matter and Dark Energy

2.  The Origin of the Universe

3.  The Future of the Universe

4.  The Relation of Individual Awareness to the Primary Form of Consciousness

In previous posts, I have described briefly how, by combining the principles of relativity and quantum physics, we have defined the minimum quantum unit of volume and mass. And how, by setting the measures of mass, energy, space, and time of the electron equal to unity, we have derived the TRUE quantum unit of equivalence, where TRUE stands for Triadic, Rotational Unit of Equivalence. Application of TRUE unit analysis led to the discovery of the third form of reality: gimmel, that is not measurable as mass or energy, but nevertheless, is necessary for stable physical structure in the universe.

Finally, Calculus of Distinctions analysis with the TRUE unit leads to the conclusion that the universe we experience is uniquely designed by a pre-existing Primary Form of Consciousness for the explicit purpose of the physical, mental and spiritual evolution of individualized consciousness.

In future posts I plan to discuss each of the problems solved and predictions of TDVP in more detail.

ERC 02/01/2016