Wednesday, November 26, 2008


Click Me!!!!

My friend wrote:

And why did you dressed up that poor man as a chicken??

To be factual this is not a chicken..:)

As much as I am sympathetic with my fellow human, sometimes some silly gimmick has to be used just to emphasize some horrible event taking place under our noses...

Paul Ginsparg visits my site frequently, in fact, he visited it yesterday fact yesteryear...:)

Location Time
United Kingdom Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:27:52 -0600
Ithaca, NY, United States Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:06:59 -0600

and so did Stephen Hawking...:)

Well, well... I can't really be sure that that happened, but just the possibility is something to be thankful for anyway...:)
In addition, I am thankful that:
 I was able to provide the solution to the Pioneer Anomaly
Proved that my theory predicts the Precession of Mercury's Perihelion
Proved that my theory predicts Gravitational Lensing
Predicted the existence of White Orifices (Jets emanating from Cylindrical Black Holes)
Provided a single formula for both Gravitation and Electromagnetism (Electrostatics, Magnetostatiscs and GyroGravitation)
Provided a new paradigm for Matter..:)  The Fundamental Dilator the Purveyor of Quantum Mechanics..>:)
Explained how the Fundamental Dilator for Electromagnetism (spin half) and for Gravitation (spin zero) are related
Solved the Pion Decay Paradox on Something about Pions, Path One and Path Two
Explained the Singing Paradox and Universe topology on On the Sphaere One and On the Sphaere Two
Explained Trice Great Hermes Trimegistus' hermetic philosophy on On the Sphaere One and On the Sphaere Two 
Explained the Meaning of Spin 
Explained how to surf the Fabric of Space on my Silver Surfer Series.
Explained Time on The Image on The Mirror where Einstein is showcased with his girfriend..:)
On the Footprints on the Forest, I updated the ancient archetypal vision for the search for enlightenment. Plato's visions are present in my blog since the first one...:)
Responded to Vacuous Criticism in many blogs...:)
Explained positivistic my approach to Blogging as a means to induce a healthy scientific debate
Solved Mankind's Energy Problems on Coherent Nuclear Fusion
Corrected all Newton's equations on Newton's First, Second and Third
Explained the Hyperons in many blogs: The Deltas and their Twisted Minds, Pion Minus, Pion Zero A Majorama Coherence, Omega, The Smoking Xis, Delta Plus Plus
Created the Sam Wormley Challenge to incentivize students, professors to provide a critique to my ideas on record.  I blogged my ideas for a few years, have readers from many universities and somehow haven't ever received a single criticism or question I couldn't rebut or answer. Sam Wormley himself avoided providing a critique...:) after my rebuttal to his initial weak argument...:)
Explained the Pseudo Time-Quantization on the Girlfriend on a Swing blog
Explained the Reality of Space
Explained the Stroboscopic  and Holographic Universe
Explained the Mass of the Neutrino
Explained the Cosmic Microwave Background on Echoes of the BigBang
Solved the Solar Neutrino Puzzle
Explained the Expansion of Space...:) in Is Space Expanding???
Argued against Energy from Nothing and Vacuum States on Plunger Physics
Argued many times against Censorship in The Silence of The Lambs
Challenged Galileo and Newton by pointing their biggest blunders...:)
Talked to Aliens in Area 51
Served Humans
As you can see there is a lot to thankful for...:)



Sunday, November 09, 2008

Hypergeometrical Cooper Pairs

Hypergeometrical Cooper Pairs and Superconductivity

I was invited to represent the student body at the celebration of the 50 Years of the Laboratory for the Research of the Structure of Matter at Penn. It was an honor and I was dazzled by the sights of the Fathers of Quantum Mechanics in academic regallia.

I sat on my chair waiting for the beginning of the talks. The gentleman on my side decided to make small talk with that young student- the little me...:) He mentioned his name:Schrieffer... I immediatelly said, " Well, I only know one Schrieffer- from Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) Superconducting Theory... "

I don't really remember what did I say afterwards, but I know that I displayed way too much reverence and poor Bob Schrieffer felt unconfortable and managed to scape...:)

I know for sure that I was hyperventilating...:)

What can I say. I was a naive, wide-eyed student, full of admiration and respect for my fellow scientists and mainly for the visionaries who brought us to our present understanding... I didn't know that I had to play it cool, not to disturb the scientific celebrities...:)

Today, I am going to explain the why there is a formation of a Cooper Pair, that is, why two mutually repulsive electrons would agree to walk togetther in a correlated manner...:)

Not unlike in the case of Alan Guth's Inflation Theory of the Universe, the formation of a Cooper pair requires the absolute turning off of all critical sense in your Brains...:) Equally charge particles are mortal enemies and repeal each other with a force singularly dependent upon their distance..:) That is, the force goes to infinite when they are close..>:) Infinite!!!!!

That bitter pill is gilded by words like "One build a Boson out of two Fermions"...:)

This sounds great but it doesn't mean anything..:)

This would mean something if there were a logical link between spin and charge...:) Current Science has no such logical connection.

My theory provides the logical link between spin and charge.

I hope you will pay the required attention to understand that the reason why you can place a bunch of Hypergeometrical Cooper Pairs close together is because their net interaction is ZERO and it is not because you called it a Boson nor because the pair has zero spin!!!...:)

You know, the Electron was always a Fermion until BCS came up with the concept of Cooper pair. This is a dress-up but it doesn't provide any substancial explanation why a Cooper pair doesn't interact. In this very short blog, I provided such explanation and eliminated the need to dress an Electron as a Boson...:) This doesn't mean anything and doesn't provide any physical insight that will allow for the creation of Room Temperature Superconductors or other more relevant discoveries.

Any dilator has spin otherwise it would had recombined with its antidilator and returned into Nothing...;) The Universe is composed only of dilators which can get together to make things that does not apparently spin. It is just appearances. Things always spins...It just happens that two four-dimensional spins can be seem in three dimensions as a 3D pseudo-rotation..:)

The physics is invisible to your eyes and instruments. It can only be seem with the eyes of the mind... and I have some teardrops to clarify this subject...:)
As I did in Newton First Law, I will provide the Why? You know that Why is the question that will destroy any Cybernetic Supercomputer Hell Bent on World Domination...:)

Why is normally left to Theology and in Science it is always dressed up as a Principle (Equivalence Principle in Quantum Mechanics or Gravitation/Inertia, or Hamilton Principle etc) or sometimes it becomes a Conjecture..:) which is the lowest level of scientific speculation...

What I am detailing here has already been mentioned in my papers and books but I guess it is always worthwhile to draw a picture...:)

Let's draw the two electrons with opposing spins:

You might notice something different between the two electrons. When they spin in different directions they reach different mid-points. In the spin 0.5 electron, the next state is an antiproton on its side, while it is a proton in the spin -0.5 electron (or vice-versa depeding upon definition). Of course, here we have two electron and two anti-electron phases repeling each other but we also have two proton-antiproton phases attracting each other... Thus the net repulsion is ZERO...:) That is much smaller than INFINITE ..:)

In fact, I have to correct the Zero estimate above.  Since I first wrote this blog, I managed to explain the Gravitational Fundamental Dilator - or Hydrogen atom.   I showed that the intermedite phases of the Gravitational Fundamental Dilator are out of phase with the phases visible from our Universe.  The resulting dilator behaves in a Gravitational fashion, that is, their direction of propagation as it travels but it always remains perpendicular to the Fabric of Space, resulting in a 10^36 smaller reaction to the dilaton field.

The Cooper pair is similar, the intermediate phases are out of phase with the in-phase phases.  In the case of a Hydrogen Atom, the interaction is attractive in our Universe but repulsive in the interphases.  The opposite occurs in the Cooper pair. They repel each other in the in-phases but attract each other in the interphases.

The out-of-phase dilation results in the anihilation of intermediate dilaton fields makes dilators susceptible to what we call Gravitation to be hypersuperficial dilaton waves.

Along this line of reasoning, the Cooper pair senses what could be called antigravtitational fields while interacting with other electrons and a Gravitational field while interacting with protons.

Fascinatingly the interaction between electrons of a Cooper Pair is best described as Antigravitation!!!!!!   ....:)

This is the best explanation about the Nature of Superconductivity. 

From Antenae Theory you should also notice that since the Proton and Antiprotons are sideways, their attraction will only be felt in close proximity...:) Near-Field is the correct terminology...

This means that there is a difference between having two electrons with the same spin and two of opposing spins.

As in the Little Prince blog, What is essential is invisible to the Eyes

The difference happens to be observable only in the four dimension and only when we don't have a material existence...:)

This difference is not some obscure and unexplained exchange energy..:) Instead one has an electrostatic interaction between Protons and Antiprotons in a four-dimensional spatial manifold. The subject of binding energy is to be studied by adding a relative kinetic energy (temperature) to the pair. A Cooper Pair with a non-zero temperature will have a net interaction that can be calculated by magnetism, and thus can be calculated in the spacetime side of the Hypergeometrical Universe Icon above. Please read the paper or books to understand how magnetism is modeled in hypergeometrical terms.

That, in a nutshell, is the reason WHY there are Cooper pairs...

It is also the physical reason for the exchange energy in Quantum Mechanics.



PS- Next I will start with how to calculate the Mass (3D Volume overlap) of a Neutron... I will follow with the Hyperons and all isotopes..:)

This is how you will be able to design the stable new elements for your spaceships...:)

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Viva Obama...:)


Every so often quality is so evident that the correct choice is obvious and undeniable.  That is the case with Barack Obama.

The man has the important qualities which should be valued by a nation: intelligence, honesty, preparation, education, common-sense, equilibrium.

As soon as it became evident or likely that he would succeed, the dollar got stronger, the stock market rallied, the people rallied...:) Initial excitement might be tempered with the current reality, but the future looking up again after...:)

There is a renewed hope that if one works hard, provides quality in one's work/person, success will eventually happen.

In my little blog, I confess that my hopes are also renewed.  Someday, some rogue scientist will break ranks with the silenced majority and bring my ideas into the fold of scientific discussions or at least grow some courage and create an argument against it...:) 

Science is the ultimate bastion of silenced majorities. 

If everyone keep reading my ideas and remain afraid of saying something, nobody will ever know that these ideas have quality..:)

Can we ever change the status-quo, the dearth of new ideas and the holding onto ideas that have been proven wrong - at least on some of their peripheral predictions...:) (GR basic predictions are also predicted by my theory and by many others - while only mine predicts the existence of White Orifices...)

Yes, we can!!!


PS- In the next few blogs I will write that my contrite inclusion of gravitomagnetism discussion from Wikipedia proved to be a mistake. 

When one reads an equation (Lense-Thirring effect) that is named after two people, one automatically lends it credibility since it seems that the idea has been vetted by two people who shared the glory. It just happens that gravitomagnetism is experimentally wrong. It is awfully difficult to see that just by looking at the non-physical gravitomagnetism Maxwel equations.  They bring non-physical quantities that are loosely interpreted as magnetism or something else...:)

The Canterbury experiment was specially telling. It places a upper limit for gravitomagnetism that is 21 times lower than predictions of Einstein's GR theory.  Remember, these gravitomagnetism equations are weak field limits of Einstein's horrendously difficult to integrate GR equations...:)

I felt bad when I couldn't explain a 0.8% mismatch between my predictions for the vacuum permittivity.and the experimental measurement..>:)  

Eventually I was able to find out the best explanation and gave it to you...:)

This is not the only problem I have with GR.  My problems are not personal...:)  They are the result of myself creating a simple theory with an scalar dilaton field which resulting an scalar Gravitational potential.  Einstein theory requires through the Einstein Equivalence Principle that:
The outcome of any local non-gravitational experiment is independent of the velocity of the free-falling reference frame in which it is performed.

The outcome of any local non-gravitational experiment is independent of the velocity of where and when in the universe is is performed.
Of course, my theory predicts that G depends inversely with the age of the Universe.  It also predicts that an electronic coherence will slow down (red-shifted fluorescence or absorption) just by sitting on the surface of a celestial body.  Of course, there is no distinction between gravitational and electromagnetic fields. In my theory, the difference lies not on the field but on the dilator being subjected to the field....:)

The fact that something is free falling doesn't make a difference since the red-sift depends only upon how twisted the local fabric of space is. That twisting doesn't depend upon the existence of a constraint (surface of the celestial body).

This means that I flatly reject Einstein Equivalence Principle (WEP is alright if one considers only 3DMasses) and GR Einstein equations based upon its failure on predicting White Orifices and incorrect predictions on gravitomagnetism.  My theory predicts the other experimentally events (Gravitational Lensing and the Precession of Mercury's Perihelion) and predicts White Orifices..>:)

Sunday, November 02, 2008

Letters from Vic

Letters from a friend.

I am quite happy to have received this email from my dear friend Victor.

Victor runs the, a preprint repository which lacks the nice black-listing amenities that Los Alamos Arxives takes so much pride.

Please, feel free to contact Vic to ask questions about the repository either by email: or through the repository site URL:

Please, visit the and delve deep into the astrophysics section. It is one of the few places where people with new ideas are allowed to post them.

This means that scientists are allowed to present preprints and receive feedback, positive or negative.

I am quite happy to say that the tone of discussion is quite polite and I have this letter to prove that feedback can be enlightening.

Below I present the very useful information I received from Vic when I asked the silly question about the existence of other non-GR theories that were consistent with the GR tests:
  • Precession of Mercury Perihelion
  • Gravitational Lensing
He sent me links to many papers with many theories. I will not cover them or rebut them here - some of them do not satisfy energy and/or momentum conservation, others have been discredited (Whitehead) by others...:)

Eventually, I will read everything and find out what seems to be the problem.

There was a review paper which was especially interesting since it described certain things which I deemed incorrect.  One of them are:
  • An scalar theory - a theory when the Gravitational potential is an scalar- if it succeeds in satisfying the Precession test it will fail on the Gravitational Red Shift test.
It just happens that my theory provides an scalar gravitational field and it is consistent with the Precession and Gravitational Lensing tests.  

In the derivations for those Gravitational Lensing test, I mentioned that light cannot be accelerated nor decelerated by gravity (dilaton field), only scattered within the 3D Shockwave Universe.

The failure in reasoning by the author is due to the consideration that light is emitted with the appropriate frequency and that frequency is later changed as the photon travels outwards through the gravitational field.

Under those conditions only shifting the speed of light would result in a change of wavelength (red shifting).  In the derivation of Gravitational Lensing, I mentioned that Light cannot be accelerated or decelerated only scattered, thus light speed is always constant...:)

My theory proved that on a twisted Fabric of Space, all motions (dynamics, chemistry, fluorescence, coherences) are slowed down yielding lower frequencies.  The gravitational field (dilaton field) provides this underlying twist on which the electronic coherences associated with light emission takes place.  

This means that the red shifting is not due to effects as the photons traveled outwards from the gravitational center but they are created RED...:) and are more red-shifted the closer their originators are from the gravitational source. 

This means that one wouldn't use potential energy postulate to excise energy from the photon, as if the photon were to get tired as it escapes from the gravitational pull...:)  In my theory, the photon is red-shifted because Gravitational field (dilaton field) locally deforms the Fabric of Space.

I will address that paper later.

Victor also wrote:
Thank you MP, you're welcome. Btw, IMO it would be necessary to somehow presents your idea in the 'language' that astrophysics can understand, i.e. I offer you some references/citation to flat metric. 
For instance, if --let say- I can predict Mercury precession from purely quantum jumps, but without a 'metric', then chance is the idea will be ignored by astrophysics.  
If you use /introduce a kind of metric, then others can begin to 'test' your idea with standard proposition. (just read the fate of Hal Puthoff with his PV-theory as alternative to GTR, most physicists ignore his idea, only because it is different from GTR)
But of course, it is up to you.
These last few comments are enligthning not about science but about inertia..:)  and I am not speaking of Mach's Principle...:)

Inertia in the sense that people (astrophysicists) are so happy calculating their Ricci tensors, guessing their metrics or Lagrangians that they would make a tremendous effort to avoid anything that is not written in those terms.

My theory is different from others because I place the Universe in motion at the speed of light..:)  That is might scary...:) Then through the introduction of the Fundamental Dilator paradigm, I eliminated the difference between Gravitation and Electromagnetism with the side effect of quantizing the ligthspeed hyperspherical expansion.  The de Broglie step is the Compton wavelenght of a Hydrogen Atom...>:)

The fundamental dilator creates an stroboscopic universe.

These are the fundamental aspects of my theory!!!

When I think about how to express this using a terminology that astrophysicist might be happy with, I face the reality that my metric is trivial.  Little is in the metric.  There is no Action...:) In fact, the standard Action only means that all particles (bodies) are flying with the shockwave Universe...:)

I added another Lagrangian Principle...:)  There is no action - I've just stated that dilators do not want to dilate out-of-phase with the others...:)  They are an agreeable bunch..:) thus creating a Cosmological Coherence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is not mathematics.  It is just pure physics.

I would have a hard time making it unintelligible such that astrophysicists can read it...:)

In addition, the more complex it is the more difficult it is to improve upon or to see the forest for the trees...

Maybe some brilliant astrophysicist out there can send me a letter and help me find the correct lingo...:)

Below is the letter and the links.




Dear MP

Thanks for reply, yeah there is chance to explain Mercury precession within flat metric, but not very sure which is 'better' post-diction (not prediction) of the phenomenon.

You may try with googling, perhaps begin with Whitehead's theory . There is also recent article by Nishikawa on unification which includes such Mercury prediction for flat metric:

NISHIKAWA: arXiv:hep-th/0407057
unification without assuming a phase transition nor a Higgs particle. ........ i.e., the angle of perihelion precession during a period is −2πγ ...

[PDF] arXiv:gr-qc/0611006 v1 1 Nov 2006
assumes the presence of a flat background metric η ..... on the perihelion advance of Mercury, and so Whitehead’s theory agrees with the data...

secular motion of the perihelion of Mercury, are relevant. ... Given Whitehead’s interest in separating the metric of GTR from the physics of GTR, ...

Alternatives to General Relativity (GR)
In Whitehead (1922), the physical metric g is constructed algebraically from the ..... conflict with the perihelion precession of Mercury and gravitational ...

Do any theories of gravity exist other than general relativity that are capable of explaining the perihelion of mercury's orbit? In particular, I would like ...

Whitehead’s Theory of Gravity
two metric, global flat background interpretation. .... post-Newtonian effects ( such as the additional perihelion shift of Mercury), viable theories ...

Up to know, my own belief is that this issue is closed, i.e. it is not only GTR that can explain the precession, although this problem is some kind of 'prerequisite' for anyone who is willing to compete with the standard GTR, such as yours ;-)

IMO, it would be a good idea if you write a paper discussing such a comparison between your own approach and other flat-metric theories toward Mercury precision. I mean with comparison, is head-to-head compare table down to minute until Pluto precession, and then let the readers see which one is the champion.

For a journal who may be willing to consider your work, you may begin with Apeiron (, or Progress in Physics ( Not sure with other journals, but chance is you will get dismissed if trying to send to standard journals like Phys. Rev. hope with them.

Best wishes

Victor C

ps: Sometime ago Mr Kerr also explains this precession with his own method. you can dig for his article in sciprint.orgm if you wish. I forward this letter to him.

Saturday, November 01, 2008

V/C Origin

The Origin of v/c ratio

In the Hypergeometrical Universe model, the expansion of the 3D Universe Hypersphere happens at the speed of light (c).

Motion within our 3D Universe is seem to be transversal to the radial direction of propagation. This means that v/c is the tangent of the angle of propagation.

This is the reason v/c exists in Relativity and in my theory. In fact, in Relavity the beta factor is just part of Lorentz transformation which later was reinterpreted by Einstein as a metric of the physical space..:)

In explaining the Precession of Mercury Perihelion I was able to refer to the work of Gerber who in 1898 used the same potential my theory derives. In fact, I didn't find the original work from Gerber in the internet but a work by Jaume Gine.

The equation for the Hypergeometrical Gravitational potential.

Gine tried to rederive Gerber's work starting from a retarded potential paradigm. The problem with that is that is generates higher order derivatives. He failed to understand the geometric origin of that term which can only be understood in a 4D spatial manifold paradigm.  All velocity ratios in my theory are due to angles either with respect to the fourth spatial dimension R or within the 3D hypersphere (as in the Biot-Savart law derivation).

In the case of moving dilators ratio between velocities are still angles and do not require higher order derivatives for their definition.

Please feel free to read the derivation of Gyrogravitation and Magnetism (Biot-Savart Law) . I've just take a different angle on the subject..:)