The Reality of Space

The Reality of Space

A reader asked me this nice and deep question:

I'm an idealist/figmentalist and always wonder where people such as yourself (scientists) think that the space for such expansion came from and also what sort of container is it all in, or do you think of the space your expansion requires is a natural state of reality or non-reality?

Remember if you use the word Infinity (or the sideways 8) you are using a ? and not really proposing anything.

I will paraphrase it to make sure I get all the meaning of it..>:)

The first sentence has to do with the old age question about what is beyond the Universe. In the past, this question had to do with a static universe. My theory proposes a topology in which theUniverse is embedded within a 4D spatial manifold and expanding at the speed of light. The visible Universe lies within the traveling hypersurface.

Under these circumstances, my answer that beyond the visible universe lies more universe (3D spatial Universe) should be complemented with answering the question on what is beyond the expanding 4D spatial shockwave Universe.

Call me silly, but I take an agnostic position with respect to that. It is necessary to know that there is unadulterated 4D space, that is, nothing that dephases the dilaton field originating in our 3D hypersphere. It is easy to be an agnostic with respect to things that you cannot know. The model cannot distinguish between an expanding hyperspherical disturbance traveling at the speed of light radially in an undisturbed 4D infinite Cartesial manifold from the same topology where "space" is created as the 3D Shockwave Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Universe travels. Hence I am agnostic about the problem of infinite 4D Cartesian manifold or an expanding 4D Cartesian Manifold bounded by our 3D Shockwave Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Universe.

In my Cosmogenesis theory, I proposed that the 4D spatial manifold would come out of a dimensional transition (zeroD to 4D). Some said that anything a mathematician can concoct has a physical equivalent. I don't believe that. I believe that some of the things we can mathematically construct have physical equivalents. For example, it is easy to imagine fluctuations of zero in one dimension. Just pick up a ruler and for each point with a positive coordinate, there is another with a negative coordinate. In 3D or 4D things are equally easy, just pick up a 3D or 4D vector and its additive complement. For each vector/antivector the sum is zero, thus any vector/antivector can be considered a fluctuation of Zero in 1D, 3D or 4D.

There is a small difficulty in thinking in terms of zero spatial dimensions. In zero dimensions, a vector doesn't point in any direction, it is just a number. Here the vector/antivector paradigm is replaced by a number and minus that number.

In my Cosmogenesis theory I considered that the initial fluctuation was accompanied by a 0D to 4D dimensional transition which provided the required entropic space for the Universe to unfold.

This is the subset of all mathematical constructs which I decided to give a physical meaning in my Cosmogenesis Theory. It is not the last word, it is not the first word...:) It is just an intellectually satisfying model.

The dimensional transition associated with the beginning of the Universe make the Universe unique during its existence. Hence I don't expect this Universe to collide with another nor the 3D Universe hypersurface to be just one out of many traveling Universes.

In my model, all matter will eventuall relax or recombine and the dimensional transition will reverse and another cycle will start.

----------------------------------------------------------------

The second clause is a statement, bold but meaningless, in the sense that proposing that the Universe is infinite or that the Universe is asymptotically large (unknown dimension) has been done before. It is true, it has been proposed before that the Universe is infinite.

On that occasion, the infinite Universe was a 3D Universe full of stuff..:) In my case, the infinite universe is an empty manifold where our 3D Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Universe is embedded. Our 3D hypersurface is limited and finite.

These are not insignificant differences that makes my infinite different from the Infinite of Nicolas de Cues. Not all 8 laying down are equal.

The last point is about the Reality of Space. In my theory everything we hold near and dear and real is made up of space. If you consider yourself real, then space is real.

Non-reality is just what one has in one's mind. I am the oposite of the solipstistic thinker. The only thing that has an intrinsic reality is outside your perception/mind. What we perceive is at best a poor representation of reality.

If you ever observed a stroboscopic light iluminating a vibrating/rotating object, you know that your percetion of reality can be easily tricked.

The fundamental dilator follows the same paradigm to fool all mankind for eons into thinking that a Proton is a Proton and an Electron is an Electron, when they are just two phases of the same shape shifting rotating metric deformation coherence...:)

Of course, the support for that conclusion is the Unification Equations for Gravity and Electromagnetism in my papers.

Cheers,

MP

New Year's Resolutions

• Happy New Year
  

These are my near term goals:

Done Already:

1. Createa parameterless Theory of Everything - The Grand Unification Hypergeometrical Universe Theory.
2. Create a book describing the Grand Unification Theory
3. Create a book describing the Hypergeometrical Standard Model and how to create Coherent Thermonuclear Reactions.

To be completed:

1. Contact the Large Hadron Collider scientists to bring about an experiment that can prove or disprove the Coherent Fusion Reaction paradigm.
2. Find a laboratory where I can test my ideas on Gravitational Shielding
3. Become part of the Five Dimension Consortium - Already requested.
4. Post the theory in the Cornell-Los Alamos Arxives - Already tried
5. Finish editing my own book: The Flying Orchestra
6. Explain the dimensional strain susceptibility model, the basis for Nonlinear Hadronics
7. Explain the calculation of all masses (isotopes, hypernuclei)

As you know, a new year brings new commitments. In the Hypergeometrical Universe, things are not different. I will continue explaining my theory, writing books, and trying to reach out to other scientists.

I requested the 5D Space-Time-Matter Consortium to join it as a member. I didn't hear from them yet, but I have some hope, after all everyone knows the Canadians are nice people..>:)

I was invited to become a member of the Santilli-Einstein Academy of Sciences which I accepted.

Paul Ginsparg, the man in the Chicken Suit above - please click it to find out about the shenanigans by the Chicken Man-, still didn't give me a break and let me post my 1 Megabyte pdf in his server...:) The man has no heart...:)

I figure out who to contact at CERN to try to entice them to read my theory and to think about an experimental test. This is a low cost and high payoff experiment. If it were to suceed, Mankind energy problems would be a thing of the past, as well as global warming, misery etc...

The second book (Hadron Models) has been downloaded at a very high clip - 1000 (a thousand) downloads per day.

It is obvious that downloading a pdf is free and people love free stuff. It is still remarkable that that many people would be aware of the release and bother to download it at that rate. I am quite pleased.

We are about to reach 11,000 unique IP readers or something of the order of eleven thousand readers of my blog. This is very significant considering how difficult it is for people to understand abstract ideas. That is certainly a reason to celebrate.

Please feel free to ask questions or criticize the theory. When I say, criticize, please don't provide an opinion...:) Opinions are irrelevant, anyone can have an opinion... Few will be able to create a meaningful argument... Please provide me with a thoughful argument refuting or supporting something I said. Science is not a matter of taste..>:) It is the result of rational debate instead.

This is going to be a great year for the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory and for me. I wish you great success.

Cheers,

MP

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas

Naughty or Nice

I was a good boy...:)

Gave you my best thoughts

The Concept of Coherent Nuclear Fusion

which I promise is not an illusion...

An idea that can save many lives...

As a Christmas Gift,

I only have one wish..:)

Allow me a posting at the Cornell-Los Alamos Arxives..:)

Merry Christmas to you all...:)

MP

Santa (Paul Ginsparg) checked my Blog twice yesterday...:)

Location
Warszawa, Poland
Albuquerque, NM, United States
Harold Wood, United Kingdom
, , United States
Pensacola, FL, United States
San Antonio, TX, United States
Eau Claire, WI, United States
Raleigh, NC, United States
Haddon Heights, NJ, United States
Slingerlands, NY, United States
Ithaca, NY, United States
Ithaca, NY, United States
Ripe, United Kingdom
Erindale, ON, Canada
Montevideo, Uruguay
Gilbert, AZ, United States

Cheers,

MP

An Infinite Source of Energy

Coherent Nuclear Fusion -
The Path to Infinite and Safe Energy

----------------------------------------------

The Energy Book is available for download here
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------

I wrote short blog about Coherent Nuclear Fusion sometime ago. As anything, one only pays attention to form (properly marketted ideas) as oppose to ideas simply told straight-up.

I had my equation for epsilon0, mu0 and G and any other derived cosmological constant since the beginning of times in my papers...:) I believe that only when I was able to create a picture of that equation in the forefront of my blog (right in front of your face) that that salient point was noticed.

It took time to realize that people are impervious to anything that doesn't hit them in the face..>:)

I decided to refresh another salient point or conclusion derived from my theory. I proposed the means to create an infinite source of energy in another of my postings: Coherent Nuclear Fusion.

Up to now, people have been colliding particles and trying to understanding what happens from those collisions.

That is a good start...:)

The problem with that is that this has been done in the dark and that should not be the case after I wrote my theory.

I proposed the experiment for the Large Hadron Collider: Collide particles which are traveling in the same direction, using a focusing magnetic lens... :)

This is a tremendous change in paradigm since a collider normally uses head-on collisions to maximize the collision energy...:)

This paradigm finesses the procedures used to create knowledge and nuclear fusion..>:)

The dilator paradigm and the Hypergeometrical Standard Model creates the ideological (theoretical) basis for this new kind of experimentation.

Having a focused beam of Deuterium and polarizing magnetic lensing should lead to coherent nuclear fusion processes with extremely high yield and achieved at much lower collision energy.

Needless to say, this should open a window into a new future, distant from the one we are rushing into now. Currently we are just going to extract all underground carbon and burn it...:) Any carbon taken from the ground makes Earth warmer and life worse.

Most likely I should make a picture of a beam and a two set of magnetic lenses: one to focus the beam and create fusion and another to redirect the beam back into the accelerator path.

Coming in a separable angle would be the products of the nuclear fusion. Of course, the same process could be used for coherent nuclear fission...:)

There are other sources of energy that I can envision and many unimaginable innovations (gravitational shielding, direct manipulation of the Fabric of Space, superluminal traveling, the ability to create non-interacting matter, etc)...

It will take time for me to explain everything since I can't find a single human that shows a basic understanding of this theory..>:) Maybe only the Aliens from Area 51 or those crafty scientists from Livermore..>:)

My goal is always To Serve Humans >:)

Cheers,

MP

Some Signs of Intelligence

Some Signs of Intelligence

----------------------------------------------

The Quantization in Astrophysics Book is here

The Energy Book is available for download here
----------------------------------------------
Finally some criticism, albeit unsupported...:)

It could be, but... said...

From an early post: "...but I will be glad to see anything relevant on my mailbox."Here goes 'anything'

A well-known (and sadly deceased) scientist once said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I have taken the time to read your foundation papers and to skim your blog from the bottom up, getting only to the aptly-named August 14th, 2006 entry.

I then followed your suggestion to examine the yahoo group of the same name. One word from that group’s page jumped right out at me and confirmed my growing opinion of what I was reading: “Metaphysics”.

Since metaphysics is defined as a philosophical discipline, it is uninhibited by science’s burden of the requirement of verifiable, reproducible proof. Freed from that burden, anyone can create a theory of the universe that sounds reasonable and good – the penultimate requirement of metaphysics – and from there extrapolate a universe-view where all problems are solved, all questions are answered and – satisfying the ultimate requirement of metaphysics – can’t be proven by any scientific means. At this point, I wonder if you’re still reading.

Hopefully you are. It would be easy to dismiss my writings as the rant of another dogmatic scientific disbeliever stuck in his cave as it were. While easy and convenient, it would also evade the real-world issue of why so few people are paying attention to your work. Earlier I made what may have seemed like a sarcastic reference to your August 14th 2006 entry “Field of Dreams.”

Einstein had a dream too. But what set him on the path from philosopher/metaphysicist to become a true theoretician is that he created (or discovered if you’d rather) the mathematical equations to explain his universe-view. These equations made predictions that were put to the test and verified empirically and validated mathematically. This is indeed how “Science is done.” You present some interesting ideas that would turn the world science on its ear – just like Einstein did – if, and only if, your core assumptions are true. If you can prove this, you’ll be remembered for all time in the same breath as Aristotle, Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg and others. If not, your ideas carry no more weight than the (flat) Earth resting on the back of a gigantic turtle, which also sounded reasonable and good to a rather large group of people. Without any cynicism or contempt and with the best will in the world, I wish you good luck. And I’ll keep an eye out for your name in the science headlines just in case!

This is a well written and quasi-thoughful criticism which I, of course, welcome. I did the same in the past for Dr. Zaius and others. I agree with everything you say other than your conclusion...:)

Normally I don't publish meaningless comments. Since I don't see your prior comment and don't remember it, most likely it didn't have any substance. This one is also empty but I am hoping for a follow-up.

Needless to say, it is a strong claim to call a theory metaphysical. Of course, strong claims require strong evidence..>:) which, ironically, you did not provide any...

Quoting dead scientists or Einstein is always a crowd pleaser and a sure way to acquire unwarranted credibility. I would expect and normally demand that one obtain that credibility by providing a solid argument or a question. You didn't provide any one of those requirements.

This blog will remain for a few more days and after that I will delete it since I will conclude that you really didn't have anything to say other than a baseless opinion.

I would like to ask you the great favor of allowing me to dissect your argument for the methaphysical character of my theory...:)

By the way, if you read that Field of Dreams blog you should had realized that what I said is correct. In a purelly geometric theory, in an unconstrained space, there should be only traveling metric deformations with characteristic frequencies and a propagation velocity. This is the simple basis for my criticism to a pillar of science: The Concept of Field.

My "criticism" was directed towards the lack of understanding by all scientific community (and that includes your dead scientist) of the implicit hypothesis associated with the concept of field. In a geometrical universe, a working concept of field would imply the existence of a Cosmological Coherence and of my Quantum Lagrangian Principle.

I should not have to remind you that a geometrical representation of the Universe is a lofty goal of science and that General Relativity was only a partially successful attempt at that goal.

I wrote a prior blog aptdly named The Silence of the Lambs, with 25 or so claims that can be used as a guide for criticism. Let's chat about any one of them which might have raised your suspection of unsuported science.

If you prefer, we can start with the main paper.

By the way, the reason why I am confined to this little blog in the hyperspace is not because I take comfort in writing my "metaphysics" far from criticism. It is exactly the opposite. The theory has a revisionist character and it is broad and supported by fields ranging from particle physics to cosmology. It also has the claim of being the Theory of Everything while having no Strings, Branes or any other superior concepts...:) (superiorly complicated)...:)

The paper is more than 80 pages long and I cannot shrink it and still make sense. Thus it cannot be published in a standard journal (current chicken editors tremble at the sight of a paper with anything that resembles classical physics) and at last but not least, Paul Ginsparg censored its posting in the Cornel-Los Alamos Arxives.

By the way, your assumption that my science has not achieve a wider audience is not correct. First book reached 1000 scientists per week for some weeks. The second book is reaching 1000 scientists per day. A far wider audience than most papers.

Not unlike yourself, other scientists - including Paul Ginsparg - are shy and did not present a palpable argument of any kind.

I will be anxiously awaiting the continuation of your critique.

Cheers,

MP

PS-The Yahoo Group associated site has not been updated for the longest time. The most reliable source of information about the theory are the papers, books and blogs. Some blogs (like the one about the Meaning of Existence) have not been updated for historical reasons. In the meaning of existence, I mentioned the example of the Amonia Maser as a model for a quantized existence. Later I realized that I could use Newton's Gravitational Law and the pseudo-time quantization to better explain the Quantization (Intemittence) of Existence.

The spinning fundamental dilator intersects the Fabric of Space at specific phases where its volume (3DMass) is maximum. Only on those phases matter interacts and thus only on those phases we de facto exist....:) I interact (here and there), therefore I exist (every so often).