The SMUT particle’s relationship with gravity and time

How the SMUT particle can demonstrate that there are various types of gravity as well as various types of time

The SMUT particle is a particle with seemingly impossible attributes that can be proven to exist via the SMUT particle experiment. A shorter explanation of the SMUT particle experiment can be found here.

In proving the existence of the SMUT particle we demonstrate the existence of the All Seasons particle. The All Seasons particle is also a particle with seemingly impossible attributes. This also demonstrates that the SMUT and All Seasons particles conform to the laws of physics. If they could not do this they could not exist in the first place.

In proving the All Seasons particle’s existence we also demonstrate the existence of the Gravity particle [called a Graviton] because the gravity particle is also a particle with seemingly impossible attributes.

In showing that gravity is a particle we open up various possibilities with respect to new science. If gravity is controlled by graviton particles then they must conform to Standard Model of particle physics as well as the E8 theory.

Both the Standard Model of particle physics and E8 theory state that particles have variants. For example, neutrinos have the tau, muon and electron neutrino variants. Quarks have variants like the top, charm and up quarks. The same goes for other particles in Standard Model of particle physics and E8 theory.

What we are proposing is that if these particles have variants in accordance with the Standard Model of particle physics as well as E8 theory then gravity particles must have variant particles. The SMUT particle experiment demonstrates that particles with seemingly impossible attributes can exist, therefore variants of the gravity particles must exist too.

It follows that because there are different types of gravity particles [Gravitons] there must be different types of gravity. What is most important is how gravity relates to time! Gravity has a direct and close relationship to time, proven by the effect of gravity time dilation.

If there are variant types of gravity, there must be variant types of time. This is the focus of some of the ideas discussed on this website, notably the Awareness model of physics theory and how it relates to the SMUT particle experiment. This is important to our understanding of the universe, especially if we take into account that there are different types of gravity and time.

The words implicit and explicit seem to describe all that “IS”

Demonstrating the explicit and implicit nature of all that ‘IS’. New physics experiments show us new ways in which to think about holistic reality and our relationship with it

Introduction to prologue

The eight principal points with respect to this introduction are to…

1. Introduce you to my concept that the universe has two continuums (platforms), implicit and explicit.

2. Briefly discuss what I consider to be the important roles both of these continuums play in the universe with respect to its workings.

3. Talk about what I consider to be Einstein’s Special and General Relativity models with respect to these implicit and explicit continuums. I discuss the role of Quantum Theory within these relationships as well.

4. Demonstrate why I consider that failure of both Einstein’s models to embrace some sort of ether theory (like my concept of an implicit continuum) was responsible for Einstein not being able to fully develop his Special and General relativity theories in the manner that he had originally hoped to (I do not say either of Einstein’s theories is completely wrong!).

5. Point out that I feel that the ‘seat’ of physics sits much deeper than contemporary Quantum Theory is currently exploring and testing.

6. The heart of reality physics must be searched for in non-mechanical physics that I consider to be a much deeper layer of quantum mechanics, where all ‘things’ are possible in all reference frames.

7. That the recent proof that non-locality is real provides a useful tool in demonstrating what I consider to be the natural mechanical and non-mechanical duopoly state of the universe.

8. Point out that I have constructed this prologue so it a useful tool to help you to better understand the ideas and material that I have created for you to consider in the body of this presentation.

Prologue to IS

(The principle text)

This presentation looks at and discusses whether all ‘things’ in the universe can be reliably described as being mechanically and materially ‘something’, or nothing at all. This may appear to be a weird statement to make, but when you think about it carefully, the idea may not be so extraordinary at all. You will find that my presentation features many different lines of thinking as I talk about what I consider to be the ‘real’ nature of our universe. By this I mean universal reality. I am committed to the idea that the universe is a duopoly of what I have referred to as explicit material and mechanical things (and related events) as well as what I see as like a second layer of reality. This second layer is devoid of any scientifically ‘normal’ physical association with all that is explicit in the universe. It has no related mechanical or material conditions.

This presentation explains what I see as the duopoly of the universe and what this probably means for the future of physics. You will also find that I do not claim that Albert Einstein was wrong with his Special and General Relativity theories. I say they are significantly incomplete because they do not have a common reference frame (‘legs’) that explains how and why both models work in the manner that they do.

I say that that all explicit things and events are ‘swimming’ in the implicit reference frame of the universe, which, from a physical perspective, is nothing. I say that Quantum Theory non-locality (also known as quantum entanglement) is informationally representative of all that is materially-nothing in the universe. By this I mean that from my perspective, quantum non-locality is all that is implicit in the universe. Einstein distrusted this theory. He referred to it as being a ‘spooky’ theory. However, as quantum theory has demonstrated, all ‘things’ in the universe, including you and me and our pets, are somehow connected to each other. This includes our explicit (particle) selves as well as our implicit (non-material) selves, by means of such things as instinct and intuition. Some people have learned how to exploit their implicit selves by means of such things as water divining and becoming successful clairvoyants. An American physicist has been able to demonstrate by experiment such weird associations between our implicit and explicit selves (that makes us the holistic and functioning people that we are) but also that our minds (perhaps consciousness) are somehow outside of us. This experiment is in accordance with my universal implicit and explicit universe ideas.

When Einstein related his Special and General relativity theories, he built both his models around his concept of space, objects, and movement between objects. He related his Special Relativity model to clock time for it to make sense in the manner that he constructed it. However, when Einstein later released his General Relativity model (built around the speed of light) he needed ‘something’ to build it around before it made sense. In this instance he nominated this something as being ether (along the traditional lines of Newtonian physics but not exactly the same). The bind that Einstein then found himself in was that whilst he needed ether (or some sort of other analogical platform like ether) for his General Relativity theory to work, it did not work in his Special Relativity theory. This means from a holistic universal reality perspective, either one way or the other, one of his models was wrong* This relativity physics dilemma remains a matter of great difficulty for relativity physicists to this day.

*With respect to time in ether theory, time is measured in relation to the speed of light. This is within a timeless reference frame with respect to moving objects.

However, if Einstein had built both his models in a timeless frame of reference, with a common ‘something’ between them, both his models would have worked. A fellow physicist at the time (Lorentz) informed Einstein of this and pointed out that the mathematics of his without time relativity model and Einsteins Special Relativity model were much the same. However, Einstein remained committed to his two theories relating to time (one related to clock time and the other to the speed of light) otherwise he would have had to make a significant number of changes that he felt were unwarranted. Einstein desperately wanted models (preferably a single model if he could build it) that were entirely physical. He did not like theories that were not physically explainable and testable in a lab. In Einsteins opinion, ether theory did not fall into this lab testable category.

Einstein’s two models were not only easier to understand but easier to work with by his colleagues. This situation further complicated the physics debate at the time. Most physicists at that time wanted a ‘quick fix’ to the persistent inability over many centuries to bring together a single model of physics that satisfactorily explained ‘all things’ relating to science. From my perspective, Einstein failed to accept that some sort of implicit type of ether would have worked with both his Special and General relativity models. By setting aside the notion of an ether in his Special Relativity model, this meant that he set aside from his models some sort of ether type (perhaps implicit space foam of virtual particles) that could have then been the natural continuum of both his Special and General Relativity models.

I feel that Einstein made a mistake by doing this. I consider that he was denying the separate existence of the natural implicit continuum of the universe. It is against this background that it is important and ironic to know that in 1920 Einstein made a major speech in Germany about the necessity to have an ether type reference frame for both his models (like a common something). He also rejected emerging quantum mechanics theories in order to help both his models make sense because they included weird ‘non-locality’ and entanglement influences (like all things somehow being connected to each other). Non-locality (entanglement theory) later became known as Quantum Theory. The weird nature of non-locality had been ‘floating’ around the physics community at that time, but for explicit (material/mechanical) reasons it was rejected by Einstein, and many of his peers as well. Einstein spent his latter years trying to prove that spooky quantum theory was wrong. Mainstream physics today remains built upon the same types of explicit scientific ideas as it did in the early part of the twentieth century.

In my opinion had the concept of a non-local (sub-quantum) type of ether been embraced in Einstein’s two models this would have meant that both of his Special and General Relativity models would have worked in a manner that fulfilled the mathematical and descriptive properties that his relativity hypotheses demanded. Had Einstein done this he would have embraced something non-locally ‘mystical’ from Quantum Theory that in turn could be seen as being allied to my concept of a separate implicit reference frame of a non-local continuum for all that ‘IS’ in the universe. I say that this continuum would have been the same implicit continuum that I discussed earlier in a concurrent duopoly arrangement with the explicit (material and mechanical) continuum. These words explain what I see as the natural duopoly of the universe. This duopoly explains how and why the universe successfully works in the manner that it does. However, they do not explain how our universe came into being in such a dual continuum in the first place.

The Big Bang is real. The explosion occurred because there was a set of unknown conditions that existed within the reference frame from which the Big Bang exploded. If this were the case, without such ‘things’, there would not have been a Big Bang explosion in the first place. This could be analogous to an odourless and highly inflammable gas build-up in a large factory before such an event as a simple electrical short circuit flash ignited the gas that destroyed the factory and all of its component parts and human lives therein. In this sense the factory that I talk about can be seen to be a minuscule representation of the wider pre-Big Bang reference frame.

Scientists have a good idea what the mechanical conditions and associated effects of the Big Bang were as it exploded. By this I mean gas types, electricity and fundamental particles with no mass such as preons, gluons and quarks. It is more specifically gluons and quarks that hold the universe together, and these emanated from the Big Bang. These include magnetism and electricity as well. I think it can be presumed that all these fundamental ‘things’ existed before the Big Bang too. However, there were obviously plenty of other things (both implicit and explicit) that existed before the Big Bang epoch. These other things didn’t all suddenly ‘just disappear’ following the Big Bang, which itself took place within such an implicit and explicit reference frame. There could be massive numbers of non-local things before the Big Bang that we are likely to never know about or understand, especially if the laws of physics were different from those in our universe. I feel that it would be short sighted to suggest that whatever conditions existed before the Big Bang simply disappeared after that single explosion that caused the creation of our universe.

Both of Einstein’s Special and General Relativity theories, together with quantum particle theories, give physicists a good idea as to what material ‘things’ turned up in our universe from the effects of the Big Bang. From my earlier words I think that we must assume that implicit non-locality (non-local things manifested in reality-science as sub-quantum mechanics conditions, influences and affects) already existing before the Big Bang are also present in our universe.

Within the context of what I am talking about, both of Einstein’s relativity theories are valid with respect to my concept of an explicit material/mechanical reference frame continuum. I also see Quantum Theory as being a legitimate theory with respect to such material mechanical models as Einstein Special and General Relativity models. It is because of this inter-mechanical relationship between all forms of material relativity theories (including other ‘brands’ of physics models apart from Einstein’s models) and quantum theory that I refer to Quantum Theory as being a mechanically explicit model as well. I do not see it as being an implicit theory. With this in mind, the question then becomes “What is left in our universe after removing all such explicit things and events relating to these models in order to describe all that is mysterious (or weird) in the universe?” In my opinion the only way to do this is by building ‘legs’ on Quantum Theory that dig deeper than quantum mechanics currently does into holistic reality physics.

I believe what physicists need to do is to understand and describe how and why quantum mechanics works, and makes the unusual (descriptive) mathematical predictions in Quantum Theory that it does. It is at this deep level that I say is the ‘real home’ of all that is non-local (entangled) in the universe. These words also describe the meaning of my definition of what ‘implicit’ means. The only way to reliably explain the difference between what is implicit and explicit in the universe is this. By informationally comparing the holistic conditions and affects that existed at the time of the Big Bang and then informationally removing all existing scientific knowledge relating to material and mechanical things from this explosion period of the Big Bang you are left with a residual “something”. By doing this we can then visualise these “somethings” in order to see what ‘gaps’ there might be between the two different sets of information. I say that the gaps between both sets of information are non-local information that is real, because we experience it every day around us, including in nature. This is the duopoly of the universe in action. It is an implicit and explicit duopoly that gives material ‘things’ both meaning and a sense of purpose both unto itself (how and why they exist) as well as us in the universe. This in turn also explains my concept of there being both an implicit and explicit continuum in the universe.

The two non-local experiments that you are about to learn about prove the existence of non-locality in the universe, as well as its mysterious non-mechanical properties.

The words implicit and explicit seem to describe all that “IS”

(Principle text)

Demonstrating the explicit and implicit nature of all that “IS”. New physics experiments show us new ways in which to think about holistic reality and our relationship with it

For a number of years I have talked about what I consider to be the dual nature of all ‘things’. Two recent physics experiments that I have discovered have encouraged me to revisit some of my earlier works, and think about how they could be more meaningfully restructured. This is in order to include these two new experimental findings into my opinion that all things and events in the universe can be seen as being what I have nominated as being both implicit and explicit (dual) things and events. This is as though both of these explicit and implicit things and events are in some sort of informationally meaningful and describable relationship with each other. In this document I bring together my current ideas about explicit and explicit reality and our relationship with it.

Where I talk about reality, I mean from the biggest to the smallest thing in reality. This ranges from the holistic matrix of reality itself to a single implicit thought. My central theme is that all explicit things and events have structure and implicit things do not. I talk about how explicit things and events are informationally related to (entangled) with each other. Furthermore this dual relationship acts in a coordinated way as though the universe has its own mind. I state that these two new physics experiments (demonstrating why implicit non-local physics phenomena are real) I feel that are likely to change the direction of physics one day for ever.

It is important as you read this document that you keep in mind that in this presentation I do not always employ words or language that are commonly employed in the science community. This is despite that my descriptive meanings in many areas might be the same. Also for reasons of convenience I have not employed a general reference system in this material. However, I have provided links to information that is important in substantiating the key areas of my argument. My major objective today is to provide you with a line of thinking to consider.

My observations and explanations

When I think about reality I think about it as being in two parts. I see material parts (objects) and events relating thereto as being explicit parts which are concurrently ‘entangled’ with each other (this is not as they are in quantum theory*) This is in respect to energy types, conditions, influences and effects by means of some sort of arrangement of these parts. They have meaning themselves as well as to an observer at the Planck line** in relation to these parts. Explicit parts can be seen as being like a field of constitutive difference that is a process that is informationally waxing and waning unto itself with informational meaning. This is waxing and waning as though it had purpose as well. Our physical selves are part of this meaning and purpose too. This is because all matter relating to explicit ‘things’ (including us) can be individualised. This is by taking away from it one or more of its constitutive parts from this matter. This means that these individualised parts also have their own meaning and sense of purpose too.

* The smallest possible discrete unit of any physical property, such as energy or matter theory.

** The mathematical line in physics that separates things that are quantum (measurably real) and those that are sub-quantum (non-measurably real).

I say that all explicit parts and events not only have meaning and purpose, but we can also imagine that these parts and events have individualised sub-things (bits) as well. This means that the physics methodology I am talking about today is at the deepest level of physical reality (this is deeper than the Planck line) and runs into the realm of sub-quantum mechanics as previously cited.* In other models this deep type of methodology is sometimes referred to as being process informational physics. In my discussion today I include us, together with all of our individualised explicit body parts and processes in this section as well. We are also bits of explicit information related to the universal holistic (explicit) universe.

* This realm of sub-quantum mechanics is a sub-layer beneath Quantum Theory as is described by Bob Henderson in NewScientist magazine dated 11/Jul/18.

So when we talk about reality and its associated explicit parts and events I ask ‘How can time and motion be accounted for with respect to these parts and events? How does time and motion influence these explicit parts? Because of the random nature of individualised explicit universal reality this means that an observer, at the Planck line, would observe all explicit ‘things’ coming together by accident with respect to motion and time. I suggest that in order to understand what this means, one must look at something that is anterior (something situated at near or towards the head of something) to explicit reality. This is in order to understand the explicit reality continuum reference frame of individualised properties and characteristics. This includes its boundless magnitude as well.

I believe that all things and events can be seen as being what we commonly refer to as being in the realness of time (all that ‘IS’ in the single reference frame of the universe). Furthermore I say that in order to understand all that IS, we have to be able to identify and describe some sort of continuum* (platform) for explicit reality to be built upon in order to demonstrate how and why it works in the manner that it does and to make physical sense. Such a platform is also necessary in order to understand how and why wider universal reality works at its deepest level.

* Like a universal platform that all things are connected to somehow.

The continuum needed is one that needs to demonstrate why all things in the explicit reality continuum act in a coordinated way, although no force passes through space between these things. I see this different continuum (medium) as being one that the explicit continuum is metaphorically swimming in. I refer to this abstract and non-measurable continuum medium as being the (non-local) implicit informational continuum of universal reality. (This is a different interpretation of non-locality that I talk more about both below as well as the rear addendum that is the traditional physics interpretation). The explicit continuum can be seen as a measurable informational mechanical things and events relating to matter. Explicit things and events can be seen as being the (local) explicit reality continuum of universal reality. It is these two universal forms (continuums) that are informationally representative of all that ‘IS’ in the universe. I am further suggesting that the universe is aware of itself, and has its own mind and can think.

I have demonstrated the dual nature of universal reality. There are two continuums in universal reality. One is non-local (implicit) and the other one is local (explicit). In some cases I refer to explicit as being local. I also use the word local in a different context to that commonly employed by mainstream physics. The implicit continuum is the analogical orchestra conductor of the dual system because it ensures all things and events in the universe act in the coordinated manner that they do because of its memory relating to all that “IS”.

How all ‘things’ work in the universe from an implicit and explicit perspective

The dual nature and characteristics of universal reality is an ever changing and vibrant one of random informational processes that are implicitly and explicitly entangled with each other. This explains how the universe acts and behaves in the manner that it does. Mechanical (explicit) realness in this universal system is only observable by an explicit observer at rest on the Planck line. This explicit observer would not observe the implicit field (continuum) within which all explicit things are implicitly analogically swimming because this is a different reference frame altogether. The observer would only observe the explicit continuum on one side of the Planck line and nothing on the implicit side of the Planck line. The observer would then consider that the implicit continuum did not exist. Furthermore an observer would also not realise that they too were swimming in the non-local implicit continuum together with all other explicit things and events swimming in the universe. However, a second observer observing from the reference point of the Big Bang and chose the reference frame of the universe to observe, this observer would see observer number one was observing two different continuum’s from the Planck line. This is because observer number two could observe both the non-local implicit and local explicit continuum’s at the same time. This is together with the Planck line. The number one observer observing from the Planck line could not do this.

Whereas the mechanical explicit continuum can be individualised into parts and sub-bits, the implicit field cannot be. In this sense explicit parts and sub-bits can be seen as being the mechanical properties (the associated influences and effects) of the implicit continuum. This relationship gives the dual implicit and explicit relationship meaning. It also explains how explicit things and events have hidden (but testable) properties. Furthermore they explain why ‘things’ happen and behave in the manner that they do. Quantum Theory describes and makes predictions relating to the implicit and explicit entangled holistic reality relationships that I am currently discussing at a ‘basic’ level. However, Quantum Theory does not explain from where the information came from for it to make such predictions in the first place. By this I mean information that explains how and why quantum mechanics describes and makes the predictions that it does and furthermore from what source does quantum mechanics “learn about, obtain and explain” sub quantum “things and events” in the manner that it does. I see this as being the fundamental short coming of Quantum Theory.

Standard Quantum theory seems to make no serious attempt to look at the multiple sub-layers of physics that would produce added meaning to its description, experiments and predictions. For these reasons I see my dual implicit and explicit reality continuum reality theory as a model that fundamentally addresses this shortcoming in Quantum Theory. This is because it brings together and describes all things and events that are observable and measurable (explicitly) real within the universe together with a describable medium that holistically ‘holds- together’ and explains why it works in the manner that it does. I believe it is only because my model informationally incorporates the implicit sub-level ‘platform’ of quantum mechanics that it can do this. This deep informational ‘level’ of quantum mechanics has been repeatedly demonstrated by the silicon in water experiment as seen both here and here.

The history

Implicit quantum entanglement and non-locality have been known for more than fifty years in physics. Quantum entanglement theory was proven by experiment by Bell as far back as 1964. It was first speculated about in the early 1920s. However, although non-locality had been predicted at around the same time, it was never convincingly proven by experiment. However, this situation has now changed. As recently as mid August 2018 two separate and reliable experiments have finally validated the earlier non-locality theory. They are profound! As I stated above they provide the link (by means of my demonstrably real implicit continuum) that brings together all things that are both non-unitable (implicit) and unitable (explicit) in the universe and make them as one.* This is the universe we live in and experience it to be. The two experiments are initially cited a little further down as well as in the “Quotations from other works” at the conclusion of this presentation.

* The common interpretation and description of non-locality in science is that all “things” know what all other “things” and events (phenomena, action and movement) are doing at any location of the universe in any instance. This is as though the universe has its own mind, memory and can think as if it has consciousness. This is a different theory to Quantum Entanglement that demonstrates by experiment that all things (objects such as particles) are somehow entangled with each other. You will find in the addendum at the rear why I treat these two theories as though they were one with respect to my concept of an implicit continuum. Some physicists say that non-locality proves that quantum entanglement is a valid theory.

The personal aspect of my message

These two new experiments explain how and why matter works in the manner that it does. It explains how we locally and non-locally (explicitly and implicitly) are the human beings that we are. They also explain how and why we randomly make the types of decisions that we do.* This is more especially so by means of separating our explicit consciousness (that can be treated as being like being an explicit, measurable, tiered structure) from our implicit selves that has no measurable structure. I refer to our implicit selves as being the ‘without time’ life force within us all. Because of its nature given without time characteristics I have nominated our implicit selves as being NOW. I chose the word now because I see it as being an immeasurable representation of our implicit intuitive awareness of all things including ourselves. Furthermore it is a representation of who and what we are and what we might think about ourselves. This includes what we may (psychologically) mean to ourselves as well as expect of ourselves in terms of our future hopes and ambitions for a more fulfilling life experience. These words demonstrate the wide ranging and flexible nature of the implicit and explicit model theories. This is together with alternative theories relating to influences that somehow non-materially also affect matter.

* This is by means of segregating and broadly describing the human brain, mind, consciousness and thought construction nexus in terms of my explicit and implicit ideas. Within this nexus I describe how I consider that the non-local “part” of this nexus is NOW. I see our personal NOWs as being our direct “link” with the wider universal continuum of the universal reality system. I see our short term memories as being determined by electron spin and our longer term memories by the nuclei of phosphorous in posner molecules inside neurons (I have written extensively about my ideas in this area).

The implicit and explicit continuum demonstration can be theoretically tested and is conceptually provable by experiment

The implicit and explicit continuum model has indicatively been tested by physicists such as Amaroso, Hiley-Bohm and Cahill. Both the continuums that I have described are inseparably entangled with each other in a concurrent relationship. “Things” and events related to the explicit continuum on their own can be proven by conventional physics experiments. This is if they were the sole frame of reference from which measurements were taken of such explicit things. However, this ignores their wider entangled relationship with the “dominant” implicit continuum (my idea) as is demonstrated by the silicon and water experiment in relationship to the diverse numbers of sub-quantum mechanical (non-local) layers as described by Henderson and others. The ever changing and unpredictable dual nature of the implicit wave (of an observable explicit particle) in universal physics is an example of this. The two experiments cited below demonstrate the existence of an universal “something” that I have nominated as being the universal (non-local) implicit continuum.

The Quantum Entanglement and non-local theories (non-locality) demonstrate that my notion that all things and events in the universe are somehow in a concurrent relationship with each other. This includes at the deepest level of sub-quantum mechanics informational physics. I have demonstrated how sub-quantum mechanics information exists! This must be the case because otherwise quantum theory would not make sense or work in the high degree of accuracy that it does. Henderson’s implicit sub-quantum mechanics ideas set the informational ‘rules’ for quantum mechanics as it does with the wider quantum theory that in turn is relational to the Standard Model of physics. Furthermore I believe that most “curious” thinkers would accept that “somethings” are going on around us that are not physically accounted for in the science community. It follows from these words that it is probably desirable to say that the onus is on unbelievers of the implicit/explicit continuum model to prove otherwise.

At the rear of this document I have provided you with a comprehensive addendum in order for you to better understand and appreciate the wide depth of meaning in this presentation. I see this as being especially so with respect to all life forms. These life forms include the wider human condition.

Summary

My words describe not only how all explicit ‘things’ and events are related but also how they implicitly and explicitly act in a coordinated way as though they are entangled with each other as if they were (non-locally) one. This is as well as being informationally entangled with my concept of the wider universal continuum (matrix) of reality. This relationship is a random one. The wider reality system can be seen as though it is an analogical neural network. The important features and conclusions from this presentation are as follows.

1. Non-locality (nature) is the dominant implicit continuum of universal reality.

2. Implicit nature violates the physics theory of causality (such as implicit thoughts are causal to new thoughts and subsequent behaviour of some kind that can be both constructive and destructive). Things can explicitly happen even though no force passes through the space between explicit things and events to cause such things to happen (like fish and birds moving in formation).

3. Physicists should now consider a theory of common cause of explicit reality such as one with an implicit nature continuum.

4. Explicit measurable outcomes can be mathematically implicitly known before such measurements and outcomes are explicitly knowable.

5. The implicit universal continuum coordinates explicit information that explain the following types of phenomena in physics and our everyday lives include:-

A. Consciousness and intuitive awareness.

B. How and why implicit events occur. These include clairvoyance, telekinesis, out-of- body experiences, hands-on healing and ghostly apparitions such as some people claim they have experienced.

C. How implicit ‘things’ are always appearing to ‘lurk’ beneath the surface of all explicit things and events and “secretly” influences our lives.

D. All things are possible (regardless of size or type) in physics at the implicit (below quantum mechanics) quantum level. There is no exception to this!

E. All things and events, including life forms, are correlated to wider universal reality in both explicit and implicit forms.

F. The entangled nature of all explicit things and events in relation to the wider universal (implicit) nature of all things also means that the vast amounts of information that we learn about and experience in our lives are directly related to the manner in which we think and make decisions.

Experimental evidence supporting the existence of the entangled implicit explicit continuum theory as well as its associated entangled relationship with the (implicit) non-local and entanglement theories.

Both experimental results were publicly released in reputable physics and medical journals in August 2018. These are: Science Daily magazine, 20th of August 2018, and the US National Library of Medicine, 24th of August 2018.

Experiment 1:

Cosmic Bell Test using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars

Published by the American Physical Society on the 20th of August 2018

Dominik Rauch,1,2,∗ Johannes Handsteiner,1,2 Armin Hochrainer,1,2 Jason Gallicchio,3 Andrew S. Friedman,4 Calvin Leung,1,2,3,5 Bo Liu,6 Lukas Bulla,1,2 Sebastian Ecker,1,2 Fabian Steinlechner,1,2 Rupert Ursin,1,2 Beili Hu,3 David Leon,4 Chris Benn,7 Adriano Ghedina,8 Massimo Cecconi,8 Alan H. Guth,5 David I. Kaiser,5,† Thomas Scheidl,1,2 and Anton Zeilinger1,2,‡

Conclusion for this experiment:

Quote:

Conclusions. For each Cosmic Bell test reported here, we assume fair sampling and close the locality loophole. We also constrain the freedom-of-choice loophole with detector settings determined by extragalactic events, such that any local-realist mechanism would need to have acted no more recently than 7.78Gyr or 3.22Gyr ago for pairs 1 and 2, respectively—more than six orders of magnitude deeper into cosmic history than the experiments reported in Ref. [38]. This corresponds to excluding such local-realist mechanisms from 96.0% (pair 1) and 63.5% (pair 2) of the relevant space-time regions, compared to ∼ 10−5% of the relevant space-time region as in Ref. [38] (see Supplemental Materials [45]). We have therefore dramatically limited the space-time regions from which local-realist mechanisms could have affected the outcome of our experiment to early in the history of our universe. To constrain such models further, one could use other physical signals to set detector settings, such as patches of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), or even primordial neutrinos or gravitational waves, thereby constraining such models all the way back to the big bang—or perhaps even earlier, into a phase of early-universe inflation [31, 38]. Such extreme tests might ultimately prove relevant to the question of whether quantum entanglement undergirds the emergence of space-time itself. (For a recent review, see Ref. [58]).”

https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.05966

Experiment 2:

Testing Local Realism into the Past without Detection and Locality Loopholes

Ming-Han Li,1,2 Cheng Wu,1,2 Yanbao Zhang,3 Wen-Zhao Liu,1,2 Bing Bai,1,2 Yang Liu,1,2 Weijun Zhang,4 Qi Zhao,5 Hao Li,4 Zhen Wang,4 Lixing You,4 W. J. Munro,3 Juan Yin,1,2 Jun Zhang,1,2 Cheng-Zhi Peng,1,2 Xiongfeng Ma,5 Qiang Zhang,1,2 Jingyun Fan,1,2 and Jian-Wei Pan1,2

Conclusion for this experiment:

Quote:

In conclusion, we perform a null hypothesis test which rejects local hidden variable models taking place as early as 11 years before the experiment with high confidence. Looking into the future, our experiment may serve as a benchmark to progressively rule out local hidden variable models deep into the cosmic history by utilizing the randomness in quasars of high redshift or even cosmic microwave backgroud in future experiments. Further, we may find interesting applications in device-independent quantum information processing [21, 32, 59–65]. Scaling up the spacetime extension in the local realism test is being actively pursued [66, 67]. The same system may also help to examine the hypothesis for human free choice [3, 6, 8, 52, 68–71] and gravitational effect [72, 73] and to address collapse locality loophole [74–77].”

https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.07653

Addendum:

(Clarification of principle text)

Descriptive preamble

I describe two continuums relating to universal space reality. I say that the primary continuum in this relationship is the implicit continuum which is non-local, and that non-locality is also entangled with information relating to contemporary physics quantum entanglement theory. Furthermore I say that the explicit continuum is in a concurrent entangled relationship with the implicit continuum and that the explicit continuum is related to both Einstein’s Special Relativity (S.R.) and General Relativity (G.R.) theories. The laws of physics of both continuums are different from each other. I argue that this duality of continuums of all that “IS” in the universe is a continuation of the conditions that existed at the original point of the Big Bang.

However, the conditions that existed before the Big Bang are different from universal space in the sense that the time in the pre-Big Bang frame of reference is fundamental time. I have nominated this fundamental time as being holistic reality “real” time. Following the Big Bang explosion all explicit things and events emanating from the explosion relating to universal reality (clock time) became relative to implicit real time in our universe. In this sense implicit time is the “dominant” time of the universe. These words define my dual concepts of an implicit and an explicit continuum. I see that the conditions (things and events) of the explicit continuum are “swimming” in the condition of the implicit continuum are non-local. Einstein called his space/time model local realism that related to moving objects in respect to local clock time. This also means that local clock time in Einstein’s special relativity theory is also “swimming” in non-local real time.

More detailed discussion

In order to better understand this dual continuum, imagine Einstein’s special and general relativity models are set out two-dimensionally on a table as though they were a jigsaw puzzle. Further imagine that the table-top is white with both of Einstein’s models being illustrated and informationally described on white paper. This puzzle can then be considered to be the local continuum, and furthermore this continuum also includes all the laws of physics, as physicists understand them to be. Keep in mind that this local explicit continuum also has missing features that inhibit it from being considered to be a single representation of a unity model of physics.

Now set aside a piece of black cardboard that contains all the information that I just referred to as being the entangled conditions that were present at the time of the Big Bang (including fundamental implicit real time). The next step is to lower this same black piece of information on cardboard onto the white table with Einstein’s illustrations and associated model descriptions described on the top. The next step is to lower the black piece of cardboard (featuring its information on the underside) on to the top of Einstein’s information on the white tabletop featuring descriptions of both his S.R. and G.R. models. By superimposing one layer of information on to the other layer of information you will see why I think this act of superimposing the information from the Big Bang explosion onto both Einstein’s S.R. and G.R. model makes informational sense.

By bringing together complete implicit information with incomplete explicit information as I have demonstrated. This means that Einstein’s incomplete model of information then allows it to be said that both of his S.R. and G.R. models are complete. One can also assume that by bringing both of Einstein’s models together at this point, his combined theoretical ideas then constitute all the information that is needed to describe a unified theory of everything. The mechanism that allows this unified theory to be described this way is by means of informational process. The Cahill Process Physics model does this and so does the Hiley-Bohm and Awareness models too.

It is easy to imagine that the two continuums that I am talking about are separated by a single two-dimensional line between two points. However, it is a much more complex situation than this if one superimposes the implicit continuum that I have described on to the explicit (relativity) reference frame. What has happened here is that the information relating to both the implicit and explicit reference frames is entangled to the degree that both the implicit and explicit frame are a single reference frame (continuum). By this I mean that this dual entangled implicit and explicit continuum has become an informational representation of all that “IS” in the universe. All that “IS” in the universe is my concept of universal reality.

This also means that this entangled implicit and explicit continuum is representational of both implicit fundamental (real) time and different degrees of relative emergent (local) time in the explicit Einsteinian models. I say that different degrees of emergence in the explicit continuum, because of time dilation in local time, vary in accordance with gravity variations linked to movement in local time. I say that this time dilation with respect to gravity is because gravity is a feature of the implicit continuum and clock time, together with the condition of the speed of light being explicit continuum conditions. These explicit continuum conditions are entangled with the non-local conditions of the implicit continuum.

Both these continuums feature different laws of physics, and furthermore elementary particles like gluons, prions and quarks do not comply with the laws of physics as we see them on the macro scale. It is because of these reasons that such elementary particles can be considered to be marginally non-local and implicit as well. This means that the relationship between both the implicit and explicit continuums can be both causal and non-causal at the same time with respect to different conditions between the implicit and explicit continuums. Things (including particles) relating to relativistic mechanical events are causal but explicit mechanical movements of objects through the non-local continuum are not causal with respect to the non-mechanical nature of the reference frame of the continuum itself. My concept of the absolute nature of the implicit continuum is not causal.

In summary, the relationship between explicit things (like particles) between both continuums can be seen as being waves of things. These are waves of things that are causal in the explicit continuum and events related thereto that are not mechanically causal in the implicit continuum.

In this sense, waves in the implicit continuum can be seen as types of sensations (like fictitious forces) that then in particle form, in the explicit continuum, can be simply seen as being tendencies between explicit particles in the explicit continuum. The relationship between the two continuums is that they have inter-relational entangled features of certainties. Certainties mean that there is no unconsidered activity in the implicit continuum. (This is because of the implicit continuum having its own mind, which can think and instantly respond to what is happening across the width of the universe.) This is not the case in Einstein’s relativity models because both of his S.R. and G.R. models relate to my concept of an explicit continuum only. (They ignore my idea of an overreaching style of an implicit continuum).

Within this relationship “things” like sound, electricity and light can be seen as being like fictitious disturbances in the non-local implicit continuum, but are explicitly “real” in the explicit continuum. This is because it is the condition like those relating to light that in all cases (such as the speed of light) are relational to the explicit continuum and are not fictional disturbances as they are in the non-local implicit continuum. You will see from these words that all things and events related to such “items” in both continuums are inseparable. No things and events in the well defined regions of Einstein’s space-time theory are from an implicit non-local perspective, separated as Einstein predicted. This is because my implicit non-local continuum is entangled within his models anyway, for reasons that I have just given.

What needs to be seriously considered

Both of Einstein’s models are explicitly related to my concept of an explicit continuum only, and therefore I consider them to be incomplete from my dual and inseparable concurrent modelling point of view. For the same reason, this also means that the speed of light has no absolute meaning in the Einstein general relativity reference frame continuum either. This is because in such an inseparable non-local reference frame that I am referring to (as superimposed upon the same Einstein explicit continuum) has no meaning and therefore any things or related events moving in the implicit continuum. They also have no meaning because all things in the same continuum are already connected anyway. All movements of objects in the implicit continuum occur in relation to (real) fundamental time, as I discussed earlier. This means that Einstein’s general relativity model is incomplete because all things in his general relativity model are related to measurements with respect to the speed of light in reference frames (like my explicit interpretation) inside our universe. Such things cannot be both connected and non-connected at the same time in my concept of a non-local implicit continuum.

With respect to (implicit) fundamental time, time is an unchangeable “block” of space where the past, present (NOW) and future are all the same. This means that in the implicit continuum the future is already “written”. This also means that explicit things and events relating thereto, “live” in both the implicit and explicit continuum at the same (explicit) time. They both explicitly exist and don’t exist at the same time! Furthermore, within this implicit and explicit continuum, nothing whatsoever is off limits. These include paranormal phenomena (things that can’t be scientifically explained) as well as human beings and other life forms that we all explicitly experience. These experiences can be likened to a continuous flow of moments with respect to clocks in the explicit continuum but we never “die” in the implicit continuum. The difference between both is merely a change from an explicit to an implicit state.

This blog should be read as an extension of my blog entitled: The inescapable duality of all “things” (Currently under review)

If you care to have greater insight into my implicit and explicit continuum ideas I have provided additional explanatory information that you may care to context with the information that I have already provided for you in the following quotations from other works that I have written can be found here.

Why I think David Bohm is a hero of science

Bohm cared to get to the bottom of all things, including reality

It is no secret that I feel David Bohm is amongst the deepest thinking and cleverest scientists of all time. Bohm dared to think about and explain what many other scientists of his generation thought was ludicrous, and was prepared to embrace the most profound ideas of Eastern philosophy into his scientific theories as well.

If you take time to look more closely at the life and times of David Bohm in the attachment, I think you will see the man to be scientifically very insightful and gifted, and a person with a deep sense of personal and social morality as well. He said that each individual in his life is in total contact with all other things (phenomena), including us with each other (his implicate order model). Furthermore, if mankind takes the time to recognize this connectedness then the problems of the world would sort themselves out.

I think if you can understand where Bohm is coming from with his views about science and life in general, you will understand my instinctual views as well, together with the reasons why. I have incorporated two secondary works about the life, times and beliefs of David Bohm. I feel you will find them reasonably straightforward to read and his words gripping and challenging, even if you do not agree with them.

A biographjy of David Bohm

The inescapable duality of all “things”

My ideas about all that “IS”

Introduction

There can now be little doubt that our space-time universe is “swimming” in a sea of sub quantum mechanics weirdness. The world of physics continues to largely ignore this reality yet it has known for nearly one hundred years such a deep level of physics exists (it has to if quantum theory is to be seen as a valid theory in physics).  The reason for this is that in this abstract sea of weirdness is where the ‘legs’ of all that “IS” around us has emanated from this non-physical sea. I believe that the legs of reality are implicit and all other ‘things’ (including quantum theory) that ‘rest’ upon these abstract legs are explicit. You and me are both implicit and explicit. A fish is both implicit and explicit and so is a rock on a mountain. The universe is implicit and explicit. If these types of way-out ideas stimulate your imagination then I suggest that you consider what the following implications for physics might be is if this is true:

1] Both Einstein relativity models are incomplete.

2] Faster-than-light influences are possible.

3] Nature is non-local  and by means of both quantum entanglement and non-locality theories (they are much the same), “all things” are possible in the universe.

4] Nature violates local [physical] causality. The common cause of all that “IS” is the ‘heart’ of sub quantum mechanics.

5] Physicists might have to consider a theory of common cause of reality.

6] Physicists might have to consider that causal influences are not limited to the speed of light in the universe, or alternatively, that events can be correlated for no observable reason.

7] Physicists might have to ask themselves if correlations do not imply a cause, then ask themselves if they should look for other causes of events.

8] Implicit measurements and outcomes can be known before they can be explicitly known.

9] The theory of Quantum Mechanics is incomplete (what is its sub base?).

10]  Non-Locality (entanglement) can make the impossible happen in the universe.

11] Physicists might have to look again at reality and decide if they think it is irreducibly random, or alternatively whether it is without knowable cause and is non-local. This means how the settings of one measuring device can influence the readings of another instrument irrespective of distance, location or time.

12] Non-local correlations demonstrate that in any laboratory, nature can mathematically answer any question without knowing which questions are being put to it from another laboratory in another location.

13] Simultaneity in physics can be demonstrated and can be shown to not only be related to the speed of light.

14] Non-Local (sub quantum mechanics) theory addresses the following inexplicable type of phenomena in physics such as:

14.1] Consciousness and awareness

14.2] Where the properties of particles come from.

14.3] Where charge and mass come from.

14.4] How out-of-body experiences, clairvoyance, intuition, telekinesis and suchlike might occur non-locally and manifest themselves in the manner that they do.

14.5] Demonstrate how quantum non-locality (entanglement) is always lurking beneath the surface and events. This includes all things we might think about and do.

14.6] From my words above all things are possible in physics at the Quantum and sub quantum mechanics levels [possibilities to do “something”, whatever they might be].

What follows is a descriptive answer as to how the mystery of non-locality (derivative of ideas relating to sub quantum mechanics theory) can be better understood in physics

The following quotation is from an article written by Howard Wiseman in the 19 June 2014 edition of Nature magazine entitled “Physics: Bell’s theorem still reverberates”.

Quote:

“Two shady characters, Rowan and Colin, approach you, claiming to have a large supply of these impossible squares. When you ask to see one, Rowan says: “No, it doesn’t work like that. For each of our squares, I will reveal one row, and Colin one column. But you can choose which row and which column you want to know.” You reply: “Do you think I was born yesterday? In each instance, Rowan can say any of his four possible answers (001, 010, 100 or 111) and Colin can choose whichever of his (000, 011, 101 or 110) do not conflict with Rowan’s. For example, if I ask for the second row and the third column, and Rowan says ‘001’, then Colin just has to choose an answer with 1 as the middle entry, either 011 or 110.”

But Colin persists: “What if you prevent me from hearing not only Rowan’s answer, but even the question put to Rowan? Take us far apart, and lock us in rooms that shield all forms of communication. We will still give consistent answers 100% of the time.” You think to yourself: “In this case, their best strategy would be to each carry (or memorize) a predetermined list of answers to all possible questions. In a given trial, the respective answers that Rowan and Colin carry would have to correspond to squares that differ in at least one of the nine entries, because of the constraints on the rows and columns. If I conduct enough trials, choosing the questions at random, I will catch them with inconsistent answers soon enough.”

So you agree to the trial as suggested; you ask questions in one room and an assistant in the other. To your consternation, Colin and Rowan give consistent answers every time. How is this possible? Are they communicating, despite all your efforts? No, they are using pairs of ‘entangled’ quantum particles — each pair of particles was jointly prepared in the same way, and then one kept by Rowan and one by Colin. With each trial, Rowan picks the next particle in his store, measures one of three different properties (depending on which row you ask for), and gives you one of his four possible answers based on the result of his measurement. Colin similarly processes his next particle, the one paired with Rowan’s. By the ‘magic’ of quantum entanglement, their results are correlated precisely so as to simulate an impossible square.”

You will discover many of my ideas with respect to these challenging questions and statements in my blog entitled “The words implicit and explicit seem to describe all that “IS”

Ref. 1]

What the theory of Quantum Entanglement is and what does it mean in science?

Ref. 2]

A significant amount of information in this blog is derived from Wiseman’s writings as well as from the Scientific American article entitled: How Einstein Revealed the Universe’s Strange “Nonlocality”, by George Musser on 1 November 2015.

Note: I believe that because my ideas with respect to all ‘things’ being either (non-locally) implicit or explicit cannot be tested in a lab that the onus is on unbelievers of my reality-science concepts to prove otherwise. I would be happy to hear from you at any time.

Reliable new evidence challenges the nul result of the 1887 Michelson and Morley Ether experiment

I am convinced that the Earth is moving through a fluid like ether which is space itself

Having conducted extensive research I am strongly of the opinion that the Earth is moving through a fluid-like ether which is space itself. I have come to this conclusion for a number of important reasons. I feel that the primary reason is that in the physics community there remains confusion and inter physicists antagonism with respect to the original 1887 Michelson and Morley ether experiment results. This is together with the later Dayton Miller results of 1929 to 1932. In my opinion this is because of the divorce between physics theoreticians and down to earth field experimentalists. Loyd S Swenson seems to affirm these words when he said: “The origins of relativity theory may be explained in various ways, but one neglected factor in that summation is the way different canons of scholarship in physics and history have effected the selection of data and the narration of relationships between experiment and theory…” “…linear and sequential development that cannot be justified.”

The importance of these words are that physics history has lead to the contemporary conclusion that the original 1887 Michelson and Morley experiment was a null result, and this is incorrect. I discuss this matter at greater length in my blog entitled “The day science lost its way“. This blog also looks at the politics amongst physicists and analysts that dominated the debate at that time. Extensive quotes from different parties are included in it as well. My position with the Michelson and Morley experiment is as follows. You should read these words in context with the remainder of this blog.

First of all I will discuss what I consider to be the “true” nature and status of space is and how it might demonstrably work in the manner that it does.

1] Space is a material like “foam” [substance] with fluid like properties. Furthermore space is not static.

2] I believe that space can be seen to be like analogical  jelly that waxes and wanes with respect to itself. It is this waxing and waning that causes variations of space foam densities. It is these variations in space foam densities that causes matter to be formed.

3] It is this variation of densities in space with itself that means space is a dynamic space (like a “brew” of happenings and possibilities to happen in space). This dynamic space is a space of varying ratios and averages of its fluid like (foam) properties. I see this process as being the natural inherent energy of the universe as it “flexes” in the manner that it does.

4] I see that packets of matter in space foam are packets of matter that move away from each other as the universe expands. It is these “gaps” between “blobs” of moving matter in space that causes gravity. Within this process matter also absorbs space foam. This absorption process is also a representation of its dynamic nature.

5] It is these diverse ratios, averages and densities of the dynamic space and matter relationship that are the medium for light waves and it is in this respect that this combined process can be seen as being like an ether. It is for this reason that there can be no absolute frame of space. However, we can talk about space as being a dynamic matrix of information. This is information that means something and creates the conditions for possibilities and probabilities to do something.

6] I see these possibilities and probabilities to do something as being like an “opportunities” field also unto itself from wherein “all things” can happen. I also see this same field as being a field of averages from which the effects of sub-quantum mechanics emerge. It is from these effects that Quantum Particle physics grew. This same field can be also be seen as the field of non-locality [entanglement] that informationally connects all matter and events related thereto together in the universe. This field is without time.

7] With respect to the Michelson and Morely experiment it was Dayton Miller [and other notable physicists at the time] who  were seeking to clarify and explain the alleged null result of the Michelson and Morely experiment. Miller and others were seeking to explain the spread of values from measurements derived from the apparatus that was being used at that time. I believe that the variations in the measurements that Miller and others detected can be explained by the natural and dynamic process of space itself. By this I mean that these variations of measurements at different times [also across the wider universe] are because of the changes in averages of densities of the properties of space.

8] The Earth moving through these space disturbances [including light] in the sub-quantum mechanics field exacerbates these natural space fluctuations. These fluctuations would be significantly less if the universe was static.

9] For these reasons I consider that it should be the averages of the measuring apparatus readings with respect to the original Michelson and Morely experiment that should be considered by physicists. This as distinct from short term measurements that might have been taken at either regular or irregular times.

10] I feel that it is only by physicists regularly checking the readings of  the measuring apparatus over a considerable time [as Miller did] that meaningful averages with respect to these measurements can determine if the 1887 Michelson and Morely measurements were null or not. This also questions whether the dynamic nature of space would then be needed to be considered by physicists with respect to the measurement results as well.

11] Also, because of the “primitive” nature of the original measuring apparatus of the Michelson and Morely interferometer, I feel that it is unreasonable and incorrect for contemporary physicists to maintain that the Michelson and Morely results were null. I say that their results were measuring “something”. These “somethings” were further identified by Dayton Miller and others. These “somethings” also mean “somethings” with respect to the dynamic nature of space too.

12] Thus I am stating that it is seems to me that certain relativity modelling types that contemporary physicists are using to justify their theories today have never been correct in the first place. Furthermore I am stating today (as you will find a little later) that I have described the means as to how and why the variations of measurements occurred in both the Michelson and Morely experiment, as well as those of Miller and others. With respects to physics experiments today I am saying that these types of variations need to be considered and accounted for in their experimental findings.

A contemporary independent science analyst [M.P.] has written the following words with respect to this contentious debate. You will note that they broadly follow my line of reasoning as I just discussed as well. The analyst points out that the words in a statement made by Einstein in 1920 in respect to his General Relativity theory are in contradiction with later experimental findings of other distinguished physicists at that time who continued to maintain that ether existed. This ether “field” they believed was without time. I cite the analyst’s words as follows:

Quote:

“Ether and the Theory of Relativity
Albert Einstein, May 5th, 1920

Ether and the Theory of Relativity

“….according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether……….But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it…”

What this means is that in General Relativity Theory, space has physical properties, and therefore can be considered to be an ether. However unlike a liquid or gas which consists of molecules, the space of General Relativity Theory does not consist of parts that can be identified as being in motion.

In addition, General Relativity Theory predicts that measurements of the speed of light are not affected by motion through space. This implies that experiments such as the Michelson Morley experiment that attempt to detect such motion, by comparing the speeds of light in different directions, should detect no effect.

However, on page 206 of the following paper, one reads the following:
The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth

Dayton C. Miller, Case School of Applied Science
July 1933, Reviews of Modern Physics, Volume 5.

“……Michelson and Morley performed the historic experiment in the northwest room of the basement of the Main Building of Adelbert College in Cleveland in 1887; their entire series of observations was of six hours’ duration…….

……The brief series of observations was sufficient to show clearly that the effect did not have the anticipated magnitude. However, and this fact must be emphasized, the indicated effect was not zero; the sensitivity of the apparatus was such that the conclusion, published in 1887, stated that the observed relative motion of the earth and ether did not exceed one fourth of the earth’s orbital velocity. This is quite different from a null effect now so frequently imputed to this experiment by writers on Relativity….”

This implies that the Michelson Morley experiment DID detect motion relative to space which contradicts the prediction by General Relativity Theory that such experiments couldn’t detect such motion.

Dayton C. Miller was confident of what he said, because he had repeatedly performed Michelson Morley type experiments a sufficient number of times to eventually arrive at a speed and direction for the motion of the earth relative to space (or relative to ether if you prefer that term).”

The same analyst went on to discuss Einstein’s concept of General Relativity ether with respect to the Dayton Miller results.

Quote:

“In General Relativity Theory space is an ether but the idea of motion cannot be applied to it. So according to this theory, even though the earth is orbiting our sun at tremendous speed, and orbiting the center of our galaxy at even greater speed, we are entitled to consider the earth to be at rest relative to space itself.

This is a comforting idea, though the experiments by Dayton C. Miller and Michelson Morley seemed to show that the earth is in fact moving relative to space.

However, a feature of these experiments is that the speeds

Varied wildly, and,
Their values calculated using Newtonian physics theory were too low to be credible.

Eg. Here are the speeds calculated by Miller using Newtonian physics theory during the course of a 24 hour period. The heavy black line is a running average.

Notice that the speeds vary a lot and are only about 5 .. 15 km/s, whereas the orbital speed of the earth is about 30 km/s, so to obtain credible speeds Miller had to multiply his measured speeds by a factor that would make his final values compatible with the orbital speed of the earth. That wasn’t difficult, but he didn’t have a theory to explain why this factor was needed.

The lack of theoretical justification for this factor he introduced would have made his results suspect.
And as the large variations of determined speed are not consistent with the concept of the earth traveling through a motionless ether (which was the traditional idea of an ether), that raised questions about his results as well.

Perhaps for those reasons, most physicists chose to ignore his results in favor of relativity theory which simply predicted that detecting motion relative to space couldn’t be done.”

In summary, these words mean:

1] The dynamic three space theory of Cahill (and other dynamic space theories similar to it such as the Awareness Model and a SMUT particle experiment related thereto) is fully consistent with the results of the Michelson and Morley and Dayton Miller experiments.

2] Traditional Ether Theory is not fully consistent because it doesn’t predict the variations of speed which are seen. I have shown why this cannot be done.

3] Einstein Ether is not consistent because general relativity predicts that zero speed should be seen as he predicted in his modelling.

With respect to Einstein it should be remembered that he progressively changed his mind over time with respect to there being a motionless (sea like) ether. For example in a lecture that he delivered in 1924 Einstein said “…but every theory of local action assumes continuous fields and also the existence of an ether.” You will find two important statements made by Einstein with respect to his views about ether in my blog entitled “The great ether debate”. The quotation cited can be found therein.

I acknowledge that Einstein’s words were mostly related to his theory of General Relativity and that they had no specific relationship with his theory of Special relativity. However, I point out that Einstein in his statement in 1920 said that ether was necessary for his theory of General Relativity to make sense. My point is that how is it that when Einstein was working to develop a progressive unity theory of everything could he employ an ether continuum in one model and not the other. This is more especially so if you consider my blog entitled: “The inescapable duality of all things” as well as my blog “The words implicit and explicit seem to describe all that “IS”“. Einstein died before he could complete his unity theory.

It is only after Einstein began to change his mind about ether that around this time that the wider scientific community began to ignore Einstein’s views relating to ether. They saw ether as having no role in the continuing development of contemporary physics models. I believe that I have shown otherwise. I also strongly believe that you should note Einstein’s concern about the null result or otherwise with the 1887 Michelson and Morley experiment (together with the later and more sophisticated experiments of Dayton Miller cited below). Einstein also questioned that both his Special and General Relativity theories would be invalid in their then current form. They would have become significantly different theories.

Einstein said with respect to this matter:

Quote:

“Should the positive result (meaning the Michelson – Morley experiment) be confirmed (it eventually wasn’t), then the special theory of relativity, and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain. However, they would have to be a significantly different theory”

Source: Albert Einstein in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, July 1925

I urge you to peruse Cahill’s opinion about ether theory as well as those of M Consoli and A. Pluchino commencing on page 445.

Additionally I suggest that you consider a detailed essay written by Loyd S. Swenson written on the same topic in 1970. The title of Swenson’s paper is “The Michelson-Morley-Miller experiments before and after 1905”.

I have drawn attention to the well documented divorce between physics theorists and experimentalists with respect to the long standing ether debate. What must be kept in mind with respect to this debate is that regardless of a disagreement between theorists and experimentalists is that there was no doubt in Isaac Newton’s mind that ether exists. He also expressed the opinion that there are small particles in the ether. (This seems to align with the debate about particles that exist in respect to the dynamic Awareness Model as well as comments I have made today) that links local space foam to a non-local (sub-Quantum Mechanics type of continuum as described by Bob Henderson) awareness continuum. Here is what Newton had to say about his concept of ether:

Quote:

“I do not know what this Aether is”, but that if it consists of particles then they must be exceedingly smaller than those of Air, or even than those of Light: The exceeding smallness of its Particles may contribute to the greatness of the force by which those Particles may recede from one another, and thereby make that Medium exceedingly more rare and elastic than Air, and by consequence exceedingly less able to resist the motions of Projectiles, and exceedingly more able to press upon gross Bodies, by endeavoring to expand itself.”

Source

Apart from the Michelson and Morley, Dayton Miller, Cahill, Ives and numerous other experiments relating to the existence and properties of an universal ether conducted over a period of nearly a century, contemporary physicists have never become convinced that a universal ether exists. Today, in addition to my earlier notes, I provide what I consider to be sound reasons as to why this universal reluctance by contemporary physicists to positively accept ether into their modelling should change. I present you with two references relating to ideas and experiments conducted by Morris to consolidate my position in this blog. These are a physics paper entitled “Perth-Muenster REG-REG Correlations: Remarkable New Evidence for Dynamical Space” and a separate open access repository (zip file)  archive supporting Morris’s paper with data.

The abstract for Morris’s paper is as follows:

Quote:

“We have obtained new evidence for dynamical space by applying correlation analysis to a year of data from a Random Event Generator (REG) device located in Perth, Australia and from another in Muenster, Germany, recorded between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013. The results obtained are consistent with results obtained by applying similar analysis to data from a REG located in Manchester UK and the REG in Perth. Consequently evidence for dynamical space is mounting. For each day we applied correlation analysis to determine travel times for putative waves. Then wave speed and direction, over each 24 hour period, were determined by fitting to the observed travel times, theoretical curves of how travel times would vary with Earth rotation. We thereby derived an average incoming RA, declination and speed for the waves of each day. A probability density plot of the incoming directions exhibited a peak near RA = 4.5 h, consistent with previous determinations of incoming space flow direction by Reginald Cahill and Dayton Miller. Moreover, removing Earth orbital and gravitational inflow velocities from the observed wave velocities allowed a peak of higher density to be obtained, which is consistent with predictions of Dynamical 3-Space theory. The peak indicated a most probable incoming galactic direction of RA = 4.50 h, dec = -80.6 deg. Probability density plots of speeds indicated a most probable incoming galactic speed of 502 km/s.”

I present this blog to you as a statement. It is a statement not only because of the explicit [local] contents herein but also in respect the words cited in my blogs entitled “Why is there no precise dividing line between microscopic and macroscopic phenomena” and “The inescapable duality of all “things”“.

My closing statement

With respect to the Michelson and Morely experiment I have described how and why the variations of measurements have occurred with not only the 1867 Michelson and Morely experiment but also those of Miller and other scientists over time as well. Furthermore by doing this I have demonstrated why some relativity theories have probably been constructed upon inappropriate foundational premises because they do not take into account that a common cosmic continuum could exist, such as ether, Bohm’s Holomovement premise and other continuums like them as well.

I have provided you with reliable evidence (science) that informationally and experimentally demonstrates my point of view with respect to  the 1887 Michelson and Morely ether experiment.  I have shown that the Michelson and Morely experiment was never a nul result in the first place as many contemporary physicists claim. The material and ideas in this blog bring into question certain features of Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity theory. I am not saying that Einstein was completely wrong with his ideas. However, I am saying that reliable informational evidence now shows that space is a material like foam with fluid like properties. These fluid like properties are the ‘ether’ that Einstein said could not exist.

This blog forms a unit of information with respect to my conceptual unity theory that is currently under review.

Another look at the Planck length

I refer to it as the Planck line

The definition of Plank length below is a very elementary one, which can be found in Wikipedia. However, it can be broadly described as follows:

Quote:

“Physicists primarily use the Planck length to talk about things that are ridiculously tiny.  Specifically; too tiny to matter.  By the time you get to (anywhere near) the Planck length it stops making much sense to talk about the difference between two points in any reasonable situation.  Basically, because of the uncertainty principle, there’s no (physically relevant) difference between the positions of things separated by small enough distances, and the Planck length certainly qualifies. Nothing fundamentally changes at the Planck scale, and there’s nothing special about the physics there, it’s just that there’s no point trying to deal with things that small. Part of why nobody bothers is that the smallest particle, the electron, is about 1020 times larger (that’s the difference between a single hair and a large galaxy). Rather than being a specific scale, The Planck scale is just an easy to remember line-in-the-sand (the words “Planck length” are easier to remember than a number).”

http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/05/q-what-is-the-planck-length-what-is-its-relevance/

The Planck length has a more formal meaning as well:

Importance of Planck

Quote:

“… The idea of a fifth dimension is not new (our fourth dimension including time, plus one other)” “… extra dimensions needn’t be curled up as small as the Planck scale, their effects could be felt by particles at lower energy” “… unification happened when the forces were still weak enough to be handled by conventional mathematical techniques” “… researchers were amazed because unification at a such low energy was supposed to be impossible” “… Fortunately, a fifth dimension comes to the rescue” “… The implications of being able to observe events on the GUT (grand united theory), string and Planck scales are truly mind boggling. We would for the first time be able to see strings, the ultimate foundation stones of reality. And with the Planck scale lowered, experimental tests of quantum gravity-the long sought unification of Einstein’s theory of gravity with quantum theory-might just be around the corner” “… For physics however, the consequences are huge” “… Suddenly, people are seeing extra dimensions as not just a theoretical theory but as every day things whose consequences we could actually measure” “… If (unification) occurs at lower energy, it would change everything, including our picture of evolution of the Universe from the big bang” “… Even simpler laws of physics would change …” “… the discovery (of a timeless fourth dimension) is simply another vital piece of the cosmic jigsaw”

Source:
New Scientist, Volume 2157, page 28

You will notice that this latter Planck article also talks about the possible discovery of other dimensions, including where I noted the possible discovery of a timeless fourth dimension within this process. I argue that the fourth dimension can be located at the Planck length. This blog is also very relevant to my blog: The awareness model of physics. A new understanding about reality science. You will see where I mention other universes and dimensions in that blog.

The awareness model of physics

A new understanding about reality science

The Awareness Model of Physics [Primordial-Awareness, i.e. PA] considers the concept of physical reality at its deepest level. It presents ideas that are considered mostly without merit in the wider physics community. This is because such ideas cannot be tested by conventional scientific experiments. I focus my attention by looking at reality science as being one that is informational because it removes the need for me to be unduly prescriptive and descriptive with my use of language. Furthermore I think that by doing so my readers are likely to better follow my line of thinking even though they may not fully understand the wider message that I am attempting to convey to them.

I have written numerous articles with respect to my beliefs about informational science. Because of this I will not go into undue informational detail in this blog today. My position is that I have firm ideas about what scientific reality may look and feel like and so it can be described and discussed as such. The following chart provides scientific insight into the deepest levels of my thinking with respect to holistic Awareness physics. It provides a platform for the short and more informative discussion that follows it.

My discussion about this chart is in two parts. These are:

1] Informational matters that relate to the pre Big Bang epoch

2] Informational matters that relate to the post Big Bang epoch

Part 1: Informational matters that relate to the pre Big Bang epoch

The sub-quantum level of informational reality is Primordial-Awareness (PA). PA is without time. PA has a self organising property that lead to a neural-network type of structure. This organising property was influenced by means of the effect of a thought. [Thought] Thoughts are influences that are not bound by the laws of quantum theory. For purposes of descriptive simplicity they can be best described as being an undetectable effect emanating from a neutral charge that informationally means something. This something might be the symbol of i that science commonly recognises as being the “something” [matrix] within all “things” that might exist. It is from this thought that the condition of patterns of thoughts emerged that became both effects [something that exists] and the effects of thoughts.

These affects and effects were also influenced by the self organising properties of PA. Both single thoughts and patterns of thoughts mean something in with relation to PA. This is because each thought has a short-term memory that causes them to have a minimal intuitive sense of self-awareness and self-guidance. This is in respect to themselves as well as PA. This also means self meaning, relevance and embryonic self-importance. In other words the PA and thought nexus became an ever increasingly semantic process of self referential informational construction.

In this process weaker thoughts that the system itself did not feel were conducive to the well being and further development of the wider system were discarded and allowed to die. This includes branches emanating from such weak thoughts. This is more particularly so because such weak thoughts had no further meaning to the system as a whole. As the thought neural network system began to further evolve and grow the system began to intuitively sense that it was not only just a condition that could effect itself but it also had its own energy type. When the system realised this it then morphologically [relating to the form or structure of things] learned to not only understand itself by means of its own energy but also adapt itself to speculate about its own sense of purpose and wider ability to do “things”. The word speculate here means to test new and safer growth enhancement opportunities and potential on behalf of itself. It remains intuitive as it had been all along since it separated from the effect of the neutral charge. Each wider system-effect of speculation became a junction-point [node] of new opportunities and growth to do something.

These new opportunities and growth became not only new nodes of informational action relating to growth and the stunting and destruction of existing growth in order to keep itself “healthy”. This is in line with what I said earlier. This is as though it were a human neural network system. Each node can be seen as though it were a neuron maintaining and expanding its own infinitesimally small ‘patch’ of the wider reality PA system. These nodes can also be seen as cells. These cells are influenced by means of the wider inherent energy within the system itself. These cells also have their own meaning of some type. They also have meaning with respect to their being differing energy types, influences and effects. This means that the PA neural network system is informationally dynamic. This means it has the capacity to influence a great number of types of structure and also the diverse range of ever-growing energy types that helps it to be innovative and informationally constructive. This also means becoming ever more aware of its own holistic self as a single matrix of informational something.

This countless number of energy types (together with these same allied processes) morphologically manifested themselves as patterns of pixels but not observable ones. In other words the original node junctions I talked about are embryonic sub-quantum elementary particles. Each pixel, together with their own short lived memory also began self organisation themselves into patterns. These patterns in turn organise themselves into clusters and packages of self referential information that mean something with respect to the wider PA neural network system itself. This information, together with its inherent energy derived from within itself influences the employment of its own new wide range of energy types to influence the emergence of electrons of energy. These new electrons of energy became separately referential to the clusters and packages of pixels. In other words electrons became entangled with the pixels from which they were influenced and conditioned by in the first place.

It is this entangled relationship between pixels and electrons that became an ever growing and meaningful field of information with respect to PA that had become the continuum for the reality system. This new and ever growing entangled information system became more adventurous and creative with itself. This is to the extent that the combined natural energy of the system, together with the unknowable diversity of energy types that emerged from the primary energy condition in the first place, became entangled into a single system of a matrix of informational oneness. This informational oneness embraces all the inherent informational experiential knowledge that I have talked about within the wider PA system thus far.

You will notice that I have included the energy type of electrons as being a central player in my description of the ever expanding and ever greater diversity of the condition of informational reality. This is the reality that I have entangled with PA in order to give informational reality a descriptive meaning, purpose and some type of a without time future. It is this entangled relationship between PA and my description of informational reality that is the fundamental ether relating to all that ‘IS’ within the wider matrix of entangled reality. This matrix is motionless. All things and events are relational to the ether. This includes our 3D dimension. Our Earth moves through this same “sea” just as Einstein believed it would need to do in order to validate his theory of general relativity. It is this same ether type, but not necessarily the same type of condition, that is the inherent ether of our 3D universe. For purposes of convenience I have chosen to avoid widening the scope of this reality ether effect to include other universes and dimensions. However, it is because of this unknowable and monumental concentration of energy types and associated diversity of informational processes and event related thereto that influenced the wider condition of PA informational reality to be as randomly explosively as it is bound to be. By this I mean by means of influencing the conditions and effects for the evolution and creation of universes and dimensions.

Part 2: Informational matters that relate to the post Big Bang epoch

In the post Big Bang epoch the pre Big Bang ether ‘field’ retained its PA entangled relationship with electrons. This includes the short-lived informational memories brought forward by electrons in their relationship with the massive diversion of energy of the Big Bang. In the post Big Bang epoch new information was influenced to be created along the same lines as it was in the pre Big Bang epoch. All new different energy types, conditions, influences and effects were ‘born’ that related to a 3D geometric universe. These same energy types and their associated conditions then became related to objects, events, movement, velocity and time as it relates to clocks and the speed of light. It is the ‘natural’ ether of PA (like a sea) that became the ‘motor’ that ‘fired-up’ the universe as we understand it to be. The natural PA ether retained its entangled state with electrons. The PA ether retained its motionless state as it was in the pre Big Bang epoch. Furthermore conceptual pixels of knowledge and information then became the physical means through which the universe can be said to be both aware of itself as well as all ‘things’ and events that are taking place at any given time. Within this process PA remains without time but pixels of information are both with and without time as pixels were originally derived from PA by means of the original pre Big Bang entangled patterns of thoughts processes that I have discussed and explained.

It is from this informational ether energy type nexus that different energy types (including conditions) emerged that were relevant to a 3D geometric reference frame. The ether became the energy type and influence for all ‘things’ related to the new 3D geometric reference frame. This included the energy effect of magnetism that was one of the energy effects that emanated from the Big Bang explosion. It is the nexus relationship between electrons and their associated short term spin memories with magnetism that created the necessary energy field type for the effect of electrical energy fields (electricity) to emerge. This includes the conditions for negative, positive and (temporary) neutral charge that gives ‘dynamic- life’, meaning and purpose to the wider 3D universal system. This is a system centred upon and entangled with the concept of PA entangled informational ether. It is this wide ranging entangled form of informational 3D ether that is the informational link to the pre Big Bang type of reality PA ether. PA is the dynamic (essential) common link between the two. It is the common awareness between the two that has no boundaries. It is important for you to note that there is no precise dividing line between microscopic and macroscopic phenomena. This in turn further supports my idea that all “things” are somehow entangled with each other.

I urge you to peruse my blog entitled “Albert Einstein and the great ether debate” with respect to you better understanding the confusion that exists in the physics community as to whether historical Ether theory is a valid theory of not. Also with respect to Ether theory you are urged to review my statement concerning my views relating to why I think Ether theory should be incorporated into wider contemporary physics modeling.

The Awareness Model is supported by an experiment.

Readers should know that the major difference between the Awareness model and the Hiley-Bohm models of physics is that the Hiley-Bohm model has been mathematically constructed to be compatible with the Relativity model of physics whereas the Awareness model is validated by a described experiment. The Hiley-Bohm model also embraces all phenomena whatsoever in a single reality-frame. [The Process physics model does this as well].

Here is a summery of the key points in the immediate foregoing words as they relate to the 3D universe as well as the subsequent consequences they have in the universe.

1. The universe is undivided and is aware of itself and of all ‘things’ and events taking place within it.

2. All things and events are somehow connected to each other by means of physics quantum entanglement theory.

3. All things and events are both informational and have energy as well. This includes information that is a condition and effect of thoughts that include imagination.

4. The universe has intelligence and thus there are hidden geometric forms in the universe that help to not only understand the universe itself and what the rules of nature might be.

5. All things and events in the universe are in ever-changing densities, averages and ratios with each other and as thus they are representational of the holistic nature of the universe.

6. The natural backdrop to reality (inertia) is Primordial-Awareness.

7. There are two concurrent times in the universe. One is clock time and the other one is without time.

8. Forces are by-products of objects and events.

9. The principle energy force of the universe is unknowable but it is describable. It simply ‘IS’

10. Space is like a web of limitless interpenetrating fields that can be demonstrated to be functions, energy types with their associated conditions, influences and effects.

11. It is not known in physics science how electrons maintain their structural integrity and furthermore it does not yet know where mass or charge come from. (I say that they come from the dynamic nature of PA).

12. There is nothing smaller in physics than elementary particles like electrons. Electrons are structureless so they are not crushable because they have nothing to crush into. This is why elementary particles like electrons, quarks and gluons are the fundamental building blocks of the universe. Without them the ‘contents’ of the universe would largely not exist. This is why the short lived informational spins of electrons might be seen as the analogical father of all elementary particles in the 3D universe. They are without structure and uncrushable because they are the natural pixels of the matrix of informational PA reality. (They are called point particles in physics).

13.The electromagnetic field (fields within fields) can be seen to be something like analogical entangled fog particles that fill all of space. It exists in every reference frame of space and moment in time. The electromagnetic field can be seen to be stationary with respect to itself and only moves when fields of (from yet to be discovered scientifically sources) charge that ‘influence’ to move at different velocities. These velocities are related to the strength of the field of charge that mean something. This means the PA ether field.

14. Electricity might best be seen as an inert condition and influence relating to the stationary electromagnetic field. This is when this electricity condition and influence becomes an electrical field effect of its own (electricity). This is at the point when the electromagnetic field moves with respect to any nearby energy field of charge. The strength of the electrical field (electricity) is related to the speed of the electromagnetic field in relation to the charge of the field.

15. Electrons in the ether field have natural spin. This spin has a short-term memory. This stored information is transferred by electrical impulses to the nuclei of minerals like phosphorus that also have informational spin. The spin of the phosphorus nuclei have a much longer memory span that that of the spin of electrons. It is this entangled relationship between the PA ether fields that influence both the energy and types of energy that allows our mind and brains to think.

16. There is an inescapable duality of all “things” in the universe [and probably wider reality as well].

Appendices:

The relationship between the Awareness model of physics and a supporting experiment

I care to talk about entanglement

Albert Einstein and the great ether debate

Why is there no precise dividing line between microscopic and macroscopic phenomena?

The inescapable duality of all “things”

This blog forms a unit of information with respect to my conceptual unity theory.