Suppressed Scientific Research in Mathematical Physics and Quantum Gravity

a reply to: humanoidlord

Yeah, me, too.

If one wants to be taken seriously, asserting that your family and/or the entire scientific establishment is conspiring against YOU is probably a bad start.

It's too bad, too.

Because I do think that some physicists have suppressed the true philosophical questions raised by quantum mechanics. The fact that a photon, or electron, or nowadays, even small molecule, can "tell" when someone is consciously observing it, and collapse from a wave to a particle is extremely ....disconcerting, if one thinks on it for more than, oh ...10 seconds, as I have in my writing.

It becomes inescapable that the universe is set up for consciousness, and has the world's greatest living physicist John Wheeler believing that there may be entire sections of the universe that are not "formed" yet, nothing but indeterminate waves, awaiting a "conscious observer" to collapse everything to particles.

Enstein famously said: "I prefer to think the moon is there whether I'm looking or not." As a character of mine says; "Well, I do, too, it's just that's not necessarily what the data shows." (Actually, the moon IS there bc it has been observed, in fact it was "there" 5.0 billion years ago (older than Earth, strange, no?) precisely b/c the elements "knew" it would be observed, as has now been proven in the lab with the famous "Delayed Choice Experiment" that these fundamental particles not only know they ARE being observed, but as Shroedinger predicted, they know whether they eventually WILL BE observed.

To get back to the subject at hand, I believe that physicists HAVE deliberately been coy about "advertising" these findings, because of the more than obvious implications. The universe has a grand designer, one that set it up for consciousness. And if that's true, well, it sounds to me like Elon Musk and the simulation theory may not be so crazy after all. Either that or God isn't so crazy. )

Cheers, all. Disappointed about what might've been with this topic. Though, I'd be interested in thoughts/challenges from others to my point of view, so long as good-spirited discussion.

a reply to: sevensixtwo

clarify what you mean in layman's terms psychological time

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: sevensixtwo

I am trying to read your paper/book and am finding that there are terms that are (to me) either nonsense, or use a symbology that I am unaware of.

What makes people really smart is their ability to convey or explain their genius to other people. There have been countless people who have been smarter than Einstein who are long dead and gone because they were not able to communicate with others.

a reply to: sevensixtwo

Your being ignored for two reasons one Vixa is a pre print journal. Meaning you might as well put your stuff on a flash drive more people will read it. Second I attempted to read one of your papers and it shows a Lachlan of cognitive thought. You cant seem to even get across the basics no sub headers no methods no conclusions. I was left with one question what is this paper about?

flagg...good detective work on evo....darwin was himself skeptical of the work....citing muscle type retracking and the eye is a miracle.....

a reply to: Scrubdog

Because I do think that some physicists have suppressed the true philosophical questions raised by quantum mechanics. The fact that a photon, or electron, or nowadays, even small molecule, can "tell" when someone is consciously observing it, and collapse from a wave to a particle is extremely ....disconcerting, if one thinks on it for more than, oh ...10 seconds, as I have in my writing.

It becomes inescapable that the universe is set up for consciousness, and has the world's greatest living physicist John Wheeler believing that there may be entire sections of the universe that are not "formed" yet, nothing but indeterminate waves, awaiting a "conscious observer" to collapse everything to particles.

Enstein famously said: "I prefer to think the moon is there whether I'm looking or not." As a character of mine says; "Well, I do, too, it's just that's not necessarily what the data shows." (Actually, the moon IS there bc it has been observed, in fact it was "there" 5.0 billion years ago (older than Earth, strange, no?) precisely b/c the elements "knew" it would be observed, as has now been proven in the lab with the famous "Delayed Choice Experiment" that these fundamental particles not only know they ARE being observed, but as Shroedinger predicted, they know whether they eventually WILL BE observed.

Conscious particles. They know they are being observed. They know when they are going to be observed beforehand.

Boggles my mind.

They are aware of being observed, does this mean they also know who/what is observing? They also know when/where they'll be observed, so they're waiting for that time and place they will be observed? Watching us and waiting for that time/place we will look at them?

Is what we think of as 'the observed' actually the 'observer'?

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite
I am no expert but I do believe based on the time clock that Darwin's theory is both impractical and nia impossible. Therefore, there must be another explanation that maps to evolution! Some how, some time, something generated a leap in evolution! And the only thing that makes sense is a tweaking of gene's/DNA. Just my opinion.

Your investigation is already flawed...

but beware because....

I don't disregard or consider verifying anything until I have at least read part of it. SH is short for SH.t!

a reply to: chr0naut

The intended audience for this book is physicists and technically proficient persons with lay interest in physics.

a reply to: AMPTAH

You wrote: "If you create your own concepts and definitions, you will always be 100% correct. "

That is absolutely untrue. Even taking your own concepts and definitions one must be tediously careful to avoid statements of self-contradiction in the demonstration of those concepts.

You wrote: "Too many of these 'brilliant' alternative theory type papers leave out one or more of these 3 parts"

That is laughable that you say any paper which is not two-thirds devoid of mathematics is improperly written. Also, this thread is about a book, not a paper.

a reply to: darkbake

I do like it when my peers review my papers. viXra provides an online document hosting service from which researchers and others can download my papers and then choose to review them. Did you notice the comment section? You can leave your review right on the page that hosts the paper. It is much better than arXiv which offers neither peer-review nor comments. arXiv is riddled with shenanigans and has banned my research on multiple occasions.

originally posted by: darkbake
So I am reading your paper, and am I correct to assume you believe in evolution?

It is disheartening to see that your follow up question to my hard mathematical result pertains to my beliefs. However, I do believe that closed timelike curves in the form of DNA deposited in the past by time travelers may have greatly influenced a non-linear timeline for "human evolution"... which could be the time since humans were created by, for instance, time traveling alien genetic engineers.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

With "psychological time" I make a distinction from mathematical time which can be reversed. Psychological time is inherently irreversible.

originally posted by: sevensixtwo
a reply to: chr0naut

The intended audience for this book is physicists and technically proficient persons with lay interest in physics.

Oh, that would be me!

originally posted by: sevensixtwo

originally posted by: darkbake
So I am reading your paper, and am I correct to assume you believe in evolution?

It is disheartening to see that your follow up question to my hard mathematical result pertains to my beliefs. However, I do believe that closed timelike curves in the form of DNA deposited in the past by time travelers may have greatly influenced a non-linear timeline for "human evolution"... which could be the time since humans were created by, for instance, time traveling alien genetic engineers.

Are closed timelike curves molecular now? Godel must be spinning in his specific topology.

Also, wouldn't time traveling aliens depositing things in the past in attempt to alter the future suffer from the creation of a cascade of time traveling aliens modifying the modifications and even un-modifying modifications of their alternate selves to try and undo the mess cascading from the modifications, spawning new timelines of time traveling aliens who didn't know of the other timelines and therefore re-modified and un-modified the timelines in an exponentially growing series of alternates. How would one stop that?

And, if we were created by alien interference in the evolution of the universe, where did the interfering aliens come from? It is obvious that they themselves suffer from the lack of first cause and are a non-answer in questions of origins.

originally posted by: sevensixtwo
a reply to: BASSPLYR

With "psychological time" I make a distinction from mathematical time which can be reversed. Psychological time is inherently irreversible.

If one can reverse mathematical time merely by a sign change, surely one can do the same thing psychologically.

I would think that the observational arrow of time shows that the conceptual models we now hold do not reflect reality at a basic level.

We have a temporal dimension, that we can observe in one direction only, and many higher dimensions that we can describe mathematically but not 'observe' directly, beyond 3 space, perhaps there is an undiscovered function that describes why this is? My gut feeling (bad pun) is that this will be a foundational and revolutionary discovery.

a reply to: sevensixtwo

I have not only looked at, but have downloaded your paper.

I have to say, my first impression is not kind to you. You seem to be equating various disciplines without explaining why or how you are doing so. Your use of variables appears confused and enigmatic. And I have read several pages and still have no idea even what you are trying to present. You mention 5D space, but do not define it. You state early on that you choose to use a description of contents in lieu of an abstract; I urgently suggest you rethink that decision. It does not appear to be working well from my end.

Still, I will try to digest the information contained therein over time. I am always interested in new concepts. Please consider the above to be constructive criticism.

The intended audience for this book is physicists and technically proficient persons with lay interest in physics.

Insulting those interested in your work is not a wise move.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: sevensixtwo
a reply to: AMPTAH

That is laughable that you say any paper which is not two-thirds devoid of mathematics is improperly written. Also, this thread is about a book, not a paper.

I think you missed the part where I suggest you can have a "properly" written philosophy or science fiction book or paper, by leaving out one or two of the three essential parts.

a reply to: sevensixtwo

I think it was a prudent question, I was seriously wondering if you still believed that things evolve, but something speeds along the process. You might have thought that you had proof of God creating man, or that the universe was only 2000 years old, for all I know.

a reply to: darkbake

So much from you... and none of it from the actual calculations made in the paper

WOW that is some coincidence that this other book story turned into a thing at the same time as my own explosive book thing.

Trump trying to stop publication of explosive book about his presidency: report