Thursday, December 31, 2009

Happy New Year!

Goodbye 2009! Will 2010 be the year of lattice propulsion? Probably.

Happy new year to everybody. I wish you all the best of everything that life has to offer.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Busy

Ok. I am a little bit busy preparing for the holidays. Sorry. It feels strange that ten percent of the century is already gone. I wish you all the best for the coming year. I'll be back soon with more lattice and gravity stuff.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Gravity, Part II

Part I, II, III

Abstract

In Part I, I explained the nature of physical cause and I described the main differences between Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity. In this post, I argue that gravity is a non-local phenomenon, meaning that it involves action at a distance. I also argue that gravity is nature’s way of correcting a violation of the principle of energy conservation. If you have not already done so, please read Physics: The Problem With Motion and Understanding the Lattice before continuing.

Action at a Distance

Albert Einstein notwithstanding, there is nothing magical or spooky about action at a distance. The spookiness is only apparent. It disappears as soon as one accepts that distance is an illusion of perception. The truth of this is no less valid than your reading this article. The abstract nature of space (i.e., distance or volume) is something that can be easily demonstrated with simple logic and I have done so elsewhere. The logic of nonspatiality is as solid as can be. Briefly, the reasoning is that the existence of space leads to an infinite regress. Consequently, given that distance is an illusion, so-called nonlocality is not the exception but the rule. Thus nature has no problem correcting violations to its conservation principles regardless of the apparent distance between causes and their effects. There is no violation of the speed of light limit because no motion is involved.

I realize that many will have difficulty with the concept of nonspatiality. One of the questions that immediately arises is, if there is no distance, what is motion? The answer is based on the premise that position is not the property of some extrinsic space but one of the intrinsic properties of every particle. Hence motion can be defined merely as a change in the positional property of a particle. This is not entirely unlike virtual software objects in a 3-D video game. The position of every object in a game scene is just one of the properties of the object. This property is all that is necessary to locate the object. Sure, we perceive objects as being located in different places in our field of view but it’s only because this is how positional information is organized in our brain’s neural network.

One cool outcome of nonspatiality is that it should be possible for an object to move from anywhere to anywhere instantly. There is no reason that the position of a particle cannot be changed by an arbitrary amount, without going through the intervening positions. Nothing is impossible as long as nature’s conservation laws are obeyed. In the future, once we figure out the full physics of position control, we will develop technologies that will allow us to travel great distances instantly. The deep consequences of such empowering technologies are too vast to fully contemplate at this time.

Stealing Energy from the Lattice

As I explained in my series on motion, a particle moves by undergoing a series of interactions. It follows that normal matter is immersed in an immense 4-dimensional lattice of energetic particles. What is important to grasp, within the context of understanding gravity, is that the entire visible universe is moving at the speed of light along one of the four dimensions of the lattice. According to my causal motion hypothesis, it takes an uninterrupted (no wait periods) sequence of interactions with equally energetic lattice particles in order to sustain the motion of a particle at the speed of light. In orders words, at every instant, it takes the energy equivalent of the entire universe to move the universe a single discrete distance along the fourth dimension. That’s a lot of energy but it’s nothing compared to the energy contained in the lattice.

A problem arises if there are many particles in a relatively small area. This increases the probability of interactions. Whenever two or more particles interact, they temporarily have equal positions. The problem is that there is enough energy at that position to move only one particle at a time in the fourth dimension. It’s a problem because every particle must move at c in the fourth dimension no matter what. Why? Because that is the nature of the special property that keeps all particles moving at c in the fourth dimension.

Nature solves this problem by temporarily borrowing energy from the lattice. As a result, an imbalance is created. An imbalance is, of course, a violation of energy conservation and nature tries to correct it at the earliest opportunity. It does so by moving more matter (or energy) toward the source of the imbalance. This is manifested as gravity.

Coming Up

In Part III, I will explain why gravity obeys an inverse square law and how the force of gravity can be calculated from first principles. Hang in there.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Gravity, Part I

Part I, II, III

Abstract

In this multi-part article, I will attempt to explain the cause of gravity. My explanation is based on the premise that normal matter is immersed in an immense lattice of energetic particles. I will argue that gravity is instantaneous and is a by-product of a specific type of interactions between normal matter particles and lattice particles. In today's post, I go over the state of Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity theories and I explain the nature of physical cause. If you have not already done so, please read Physics: The Problem With Motion and Understanding the Lattice before continuing.

Newtonian Gravity and General Relativity

Newtonian gravity assumes that gravity is instantaneous whereas Einsteinian gravity claims that gravity travels at the speed of light. Both theories agree that the gravitational force between two bodies is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Newtonian gravity theory is simple yet extremely accurate, so much so that it is the theory used by NASA and other space agencies to place satellites in orbit and send probes to other bodies in the solar system. General relativity, by contrast, introduces all sorts of strange and convoluted complexities in order to explain why gravitating bodies behaved as if gravity acted instantaneously. The relativist explanation fails for two reasons, in my opinion. One is its lack of parsimony and the other is that it appeals to magic (more on this in an upcoming post).

Publicly, when asked about the cause of gravity, Newton offered his famous hypotheses, non fingo response. However, privately, he speculated that it was the result of some type of flux radiating from every massive body and traveling in straight lines and in every direction. This would explain the inverse square law of gravitational attraction. Of course, the flux hypothesis would not explain the instantaneous nature of gravity unless one assumed that the flux moved at infinite speed, at which point the flux explanation gets into serious trouble.

Most relativists claim that gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime. When it is pointed out to them that spacetime is just a fictitious math construct, they will either admit that they don’t know or assert that physics is not about the why of things but the how. Whatever. Some relativists are trying to revive Newton’s flux idea by proposing the existence of an intermediary massless particle called the graviton. One of the problems with the graviton hypothesis is that the graviton has never been observed. Another problem is that gravitons are affected by the same spacetime curvature that they create. This results in a troublesome infinite regress that brings down the entire house of cards. From my perspective, the graviton hypothesis is dead on arrival.

Physical Cause

A cause, in physics, is an imbalance and an imbalance is a violation of a conservation principle such as the conservation of momentum, spin orientation or energy. What we observe as gravity is nature’s way of correcting one or more imbalances. The correction is an interaction that manifests itself as gravitational attraction.

Coming Up

In my next post, I will explain what type of imbalance causes gravity and what generates the imbalance.

Monday, December 7, 2009

Climate Change

Crooked Planet

Just a quick post to express my opinion on the man-made global warming hypothesis and the travesty taking place in Copenhagen. I think it's the biggest fraud in the history of science. But it pales in comparison to the two biggest frauds in the history of humanity: capitalism and communism. Did you know that the money that the US Federal Reserve (or similar institutions elsewhere) loans to banks is not theirs to use as they please? It's the public's money, of course. But don't let any of this get you down. Soon, the master of the house will come home and set things in order. I just thought I'd chime in today with another rebellious point of view.

PS. I am working on an article on gravity. Coming soon.

Sunday, December 6, 2009

The Death of Larrabee or Intel, I Told You So

I Had Foreseen It

Back in June of this year, I wrote the following comment in response to a New York Times' Bits blog article by Ashlee Vance about Sun Microsystem's cancellation of its Rock chip project:
[...]The parallel programming crisis is an unprecedented opportunity for a real maverick to shift the computing paradigm and forge a new future. It’s obvious that neither Intel nor AMD have a solution. You can rest assured that Sun’s Rock chip will not be the last big chip failure in the industry. Get ready to witness Intel’s Larrabee and AMD’s Fusion projects come crashing down like the Hindenburg.

Anybody who thinks that last century’s multithreading CPU and GPU technologies will survive in the age of massive parallelism is delusional, in my opinion. After the industry has suffered enough (it’s all about money), it will suddenly dawn on everybody that it is time to force the baby boomers (the Turing Machine worshippers) to finally retire and boldly break away from 20th century’s failed computing models.

Sun Microsystems blew it but it’s never too late. Oracle should let bygones be bygones and immediately fund another big chip project, one designed to rock the industry and ruffle as many feathers as possible. That is, if they know what’s good for them.
Will Oracle do the right thing? I doubt it. Now that Intel has announced the de facto demise of Larrabee, my prediction is now partially vindicated. Soon, AMD will announce the cancellation of its Fusion chip and my prediction will then be fully vindicated. Fusion is another hideous heterogeneous beast that is also destined for oblivion. There is no escaping this, in my opinion, because the big chip makers are going about it the wrong way, for reasons that I have written about in the last few years. I see other big failures on the horizon unless, of course, the industry finally sees the light. But I am not counting on that happening anytime soon.

Goodbye Larrabee

Sorry Intel. I am not one to say I told you so, but I did. Goodbye Larrabee and good riddance. Nice knowing ya even if it was for such a short time. Your only consolation is that you will have plenty of company in the growing heap of failed processors. Say hello to IBM's Cell Processor when you arrive.

See Also:
How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis
Nightmare on Core Street
Parallel Computing: The End of the Turing Madness

Sunday, November 29, 2009

Why I Am Crazy

Abstract

I don’t need to be diagnosed by a psychiatrist to know that I’m crazy. I already know I am a raving lunatic. First off, there is a history of mental illness (bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, autism, etc.) in my family and second, I understand the brain and know myself well enough to honestly realize that I got problems. I consider it both a curse and a blessing.

The Curse

It is a curse because, in its worst incarnations, mental illness is devastating. I am one of the more fortunate ones in that my condition is not as pronounced or as debilitating as it has been with some of my relatives. I can lead a quasi-normal life and make a living, even if I find it to be a royal pain in the ass. It’s hard for me to lead a normal life because I find it excruciatingly boring. My mind is always busy with things that have nothing to do with what I am supposed to be busy with at the moment. As a result, I tend to be distracted and I often miss important details about what is going on around me. Needless to say, this constant daydreaming can be disastrous at times but I can’t seem to shake it.

The Blessing

Sometimes I feel like the protagonist in Robert Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land. For some reason, I got an insatiable desire to grok things. I feel blessed because it can sometimes lead to powerful insights. If I am interested in a subject, I will continually think about it and research it and I will not rest until I fully understand it. I keep mental notes of things that I don’t yet understand and I make it a point to think about them as often as I can. So if I figure certain things out, it’s not because I am smarter than anyone else, but because I meditate on them a lot longer than most people.

I Think About Strange and Crazy Things All the Time

My natural inclination to grok the world around me forces me to examine the foundational aspects of everything. I continually ask myself questions about the extreme fundamental underpinnings of reality. For example, I’ve been trying to understand why any given property of a particle (e.g., mass, energy, position or orientation) is what it is. I ask myself questions like, why does the mass (body) of a particle act like mass and not like kinetic energy? Or, using my seraphim terminology (see links below), what makes a wing a wing and not a face or a body? These are things that normal people never think about but I do. Why? Because I'm crazy.

Having long ago concluded that everything is necessarily made of nothing (otherwise, you run into an infinite regress) and that all particles and their properties sum up to nothing (a yin-yang universe), a new mystery immediately arose. There was no doubt in my mind that creation consists of separating opposite things out of nothing but I could not honestly accept the proposition that a property can mean something as opposed to some other thing while being nothing at the same time. After all, how can nothing be a property? It didn’t make any sense and the contradiction was driving me nuts (ha ha). So I kept thinking about it.

Eventually it grabbed me that one nothing is not enough to explain reality. The physical can have no meaning in and of itself. For anything to make sense, something else is required. I concluded that the materialists were wrong from the start: There is a yin-yang material realm for substance and there is another yin-yang realm for meaning. The two are opposite and complementary. It follows that particles and their properties have no meaning unless something gives them meaning. The meaning of physical properties is necessarily governed by something else. This is clearly indicated by the metaphor of the throne in John’s occult little book:
Rev. 4:6-8
Before the throne there was a sea of glass, like crystal. And in the midst of the throne, and around the throne, were four living creatures full of eyes in front and in back. The first living creature was like a lion, the second living creature like a calf, the third living creature had a face like a man, and the fourth living creature was like a flying eagle. The four living creatures, each having six wings, were full of eyes around and within.


In other words, the throne represents the realm of meaning, i.e., the realm that governs meaning for the sea of glass and the four living creatures. Of course, there were other thrones in John's vision_24 to be exact_but that's another story. Now that you know the extent of my craziness, whether or not you want to take my writings seriously is up to you. I am OK either way but I would be a little bit more careful about it if I were you. Don't trust what I say unless it makes sense to you. Oh, I almost forgot. Did I ever mention that I sometimes use pot to expand my thinking? Well, now you know. I am not only crazy, I'm also a pothead. ahahaha...

Related:

Nasty Little Truth About Matter
Physics: The Problem With Motion
Understanding the Lattice
Lattice Propulsion

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Lattice Propulsion: One More Clue

Abstract

I know that some of you are conducting your own experiments at home based on what I have written so far. I realize that I may not have given you enough clues to work with. In Lattice Propulsion, Part IV, I wrote about the symbolic meaning of Ed Leedskalnin’s flanking stones at the Coral Castle. Here is something else for you to think about.

The Mystery of the Flanking Stones

The electrostatic field between two charged parallel surfaces consists of opposite-facing seraphim being emitted by the plates. The seraphim reaching the plates interact with the plate particles. The result is that forces are exerted, which tend to draw them toward each other.
A stone placed between the plates will experience no net force. I suggested previously that there is a symbolic similarity between the diagram above and Ed’s flanking blocks of stone.
Click to enlarge
Take another close look at the picture. Note that the horizontal parallel lines on the flanking stones are lined up on the right sides of the stones. In my diagram, by contrast, the left-pointing arrows on the right are depicted on the left side of the plate. Ed's flanking stones lack symmetry. This is significant, in my opinion. Ed was sending another subtle but important message to posterity. Keep in mind that the secret of stone levitation cannot be so simple that it could be discovered serendipitously. However, it should be simple enough that, once explained, almost anybody could do it, even ancient peoples. The Baghdad Battery is a case in point. That’s your clue for the day.

Am I Crazy?

Someone who wishes to remain anonymous wrote to ask me if I ever had a psychiatric diagnosis. In other words, he wants to know if a qualified doctor ever diagnosed me with any sort of mental illness. In short, am I crazy? That’s the topic of my next article.

See Also:

Physics: The Problem with Motion
Understanding the Lattice
Lattice Propulsion

Friday, November 13, 2009

I Can't Do It

Lattice propulsion is one big hot potato. I've been running a few nightmarish scenarios in my mind during the last few days and I've come to realize that, when it comes down to it, I’m just a chicken. I don't have the balls to publish my experiments. Besides, the way I see it, I am not the lord of the world and this knowledge does not belong to me. I have neither the authority nor the wisdom to do with it as I please.

A long time ago, the powers that be decided that it was wise to use obscure metaphorical texts to hide their powerful knowledge in plain sight. There their secret laid for centuries, safe from all those who would use it for evil. Their own worldview prevented them from suspecting that its existence could even be possible. In my opinion, the original knowledge givers are the true masters of their secrets. It is up to them to decide if and when the awesome power of the sea of glass and the seraphim should be released into the world. I am just another crackpot on the internet. Maybe someone else can do it but I can't. Sorry.

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Lattice Propulsion, Part IV

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV

Abstract

In Part III, I wrote that Edward Leedskalnin’s real message in his book, Magnetic Current, has to do with electrostatic fields and one’s orientation relative to the absolute axes of the universe. I believe that the entire message that Ed was trying to convey is contained in the first sentence of the book. I think that the rest of the book may have been a diversion. I also explained the riddle of the Sphinx and mentioned that Ed left another important clue, a stone shaped like a right angle. In this post, I will go over the meaning of the right angle stone and a couple of other related things. If you have not already done so, please read Physics: The Problem With Motion, Understanding the Lattice and the first three parts of this article before continuing.

Ed’s Flanking Stones

The problem with creating an electrostatic field between two plates is that there are two poles, positive and negative. Positive seraphim flowing from one plate meet negative seraphim coming from the other plate and cancel each other out. That is to say, no net force is created on a stone placed in the middle.
Why is this a problem? It has to do with energy conservation. In other words, if the seraphim cancel each other out when they interact with the stone in the middle, where do their energies go? Before I answer this question, please take a good look at the picture below. It is an intriguing picture of a stone monument that Ed erected inside Coral Castle. Observe that the big 30-ton block sitting on the ground in the middle is flanked by two smaller blocks.
Click to enlarge
That is an interesting arrangement in its own right but what is even more interesting, in my opinion, are the horizontal lines on the flanking stones. Do you see the similarity between my diagram above and Ed’s blocks? Why would Ed place three blocks side by side when he could just as easily have placed a bigger block at the same spot? After all, if you can cut, lift and transport a 30-ton rock, how much more work would a 60-ton rock be? Ed was obviously sending a message. The symbolism of the structure is so striking that it seems to me that he must have understood a lot more about the underlying theory of levitation than can be surmised from his writings alone. It's either that or he was being directed by someone else. Who knows? There is much more to the mystery of Ed Leedskalnin and his castle than we can know for now.

The Right Angle Stone

When faced with a situation where the energy conservation principle is violated, nature must correct the violation somehow. (By the way, all conservation principles known to physics are derived from the mother of all conservation principles, the conservation of nothing. But that’s a topic for a future article). In this case, nature if forced to transform the seraphim in the counter-moving beams by transferring energy from one wing to another in order to eliminate the violation. The result is that the seraphim instantly change their movement and start moving in a perpendicular direction. If the seraphim were moving in a trajectory parallel to one of the absolute axes of the universes, nature has only two other perpendicular directions to work with, owing to the finite number of wings and the restrictions imposed on seraphical movement (see previous post). There is no reason to prefer one to the other. So nature chooses them at random, which means that, on average, the net effect is nil. The important thing to note about all of this is that the seraphim must do a 90-degree turn. I believe that this is part of the symbolic meaning of Ed's right-angle stone perched on a pedestal on top of the 30-stone block. The key to levitation is to come up with a way to force nature to do your bidding. Ed's right angle stone is an important part of the secret.

Lo que será, será

Whatever will be will be. At this point, it would be impossible for me to write another post on this subject without revealing the full secret of lattice propulsion (and stone levitation), a secret that was known to Ed Leedskalnin more than half a century ago, and to a select few in ancient times, a secret that will shake the world in more ways than one. I am very much aware of the possible consequences of unleashing this knowledge into the world and, frankly speaking, I am rather scared. I am scared for myself because a) I neither want nor need the publicity and b) this is the kind of stuff that brings out the evil in men. I am scared for humanity as well because, letting this knowledge loose into the world will be highly destabilizing, to say the least. But then again, I am just a raving lunatic, so I don't really know for sure what will happen.

U Can’t Touch This

That being said, something keeps telling me that all secrets are uncovered sooner or later and that this may be the right time for the ancient and powerful secret of the sea of glass and the six-winged seraphim to come out. If not, then I would not be able to reveal it even if I tried with all my might. I am planning a demonstration at a time and place of my choosing (soon, I hope). I cannot publish the experimental setup until after the demo. Why? Because I have noticed a tendency within the physics community to claim that they already have a theory for something even when the historical evidence squarely contradicts them. It's the "we knew it all along" syndrome. Someone wrote to tell me that physicists are way ahead of me and that they already know all about the lattice. They even have a name for it: the zero-point energy field. Ok. Whatever. What I really want to do is to demonstrate the levitation technology based on the hypothesis that I've tried to explain in these articles and then issue a challenge to the physics community to duplicate it. The name of the challenge will be “U can’t touch this”, following on a theme made famous by the M.C. Hammer song of the same name. In other words, the challenge will be, can your physics do this?

We are living in exciting times. Hang in there.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Lattice Propulsion, Part III

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV

Abstract

In Part II, I wrote that there was no doubt in my mind that Ed Leedskalnin, the man who built the Coral Castle and claimed to have discovered the levitation secrets of the ancients, was indeed onto something big. In this post, I describe what Ed Leedskalnin meant by electricity and I explain the riddle of the Sphinx. If you have not already done so, please read Physics: The Problem With Motion, Understanding the Lattice and the first two parts of this article before continuing.

Ed’s Message

In my opinion, Ed Leedskalnin wanted posterity to figure out how he built his castle. He left several clues, the most important of which, in my opinion, is the very first sentence of his book Magnetic Current, which I reproduce below:
This writing is lined up so when you read it you look East, and all the description you will read about magnetic current, it will be just as good for your electricity.
To grasp what Ed was saying, one must understand what he meant by magnetic current and electricity. In his model, a magnetic current is a stream of micro-magnets that flows in and out of a big magnet. By electricity, Ed was not referring to the modern meaning of electric current as a flow of electrons in a conductor. He was talking about the tiny particles (micro-magnets) that, he hypothesized, flow in and out of an electrically charged body. In other words, electric micro-magnets behave like magnetic micro-magnets but only if the apparatus is oriented to face true east. Why? Ed did not explain why because, in my opinion, he did not know. His attempt at a theory had merit but, in the end, it was just that, an attempt. But somehow, I don’t think that Ed’s Magnetic Current was really meant to teach anybody anything about magnetism. I now believe that the first sentence was Ed’s entire message. And the message is, if you understand this sentence, then you already know the secret of levitation. So why did Ed direct the reader of his little book to “look east” when working with electricity? What follows is my explanation.

The Riddle of the Sphinx

In Understanding the Lattice, Part IV, I mentioned that, thousands of years ago, a man named Isaiah wrote down the secret of seraphim motion on a scroll. According to Isaiah, a seraph can use only two of its six wings at a time to move. Remember that the wings of seraphim are associated with motion in the three familiar spatial dimensions. There are two wings (positive and negative) for each dimension. It follows that, at any given time, a seraph can only move on an absolute surface or plane. Note that it takes two perpendicular dimensions or axes to describe a surface. Let’s call this surface an 'absolute plane'. In abstract 3-D space, there are three possible types of absolute planes, each perpendicular to the others, as depicted by the three sides of the isometric cube below.

What if you could force a coherent stream of seraphim (arrows) to move in parallel trajectories but perpendicularly to one of the three absolute planes? The answer is that the seraphim would be using only one of their wings for movement. It follows that, by playing with various directions of motion aligned with the absolute axes of the universe, one can control which pairs of wings are used.
Now, what if the north-south rotational axis of the earth was parallel to one of the absolute axes of the universe? It would mean that any plane perpendicular to the axis of the earth would be parallel to one of the three absolute planes described above. It would also mean that, if you were standing up vertically on the surface of the earth and look east, you would be moving in an absolute plane as the earth spins on its axis. This is the secret of the Sphinx of Giza and the key to levitation. And this is the reason that Ed directed the reader of his book to look east. Is it a coincidence that the axis of the earth is parallel to one of the three absolute axes of the universe? I don’t think so. I'll have more to say on this topic in a future post.

Ed’s Other Big Clue

My hypothesis is that it is possible to control the direction of motion of a given type of seraphim through a block of stone in such a way as to induce a change in the stone that would cause it to move in a certain direction. Ed Leedskalnin left a few other clues about his secret in plain sight at Coral Castle. The first important clue, of course, is that the castle is oriented to the true cardinal directions. Another clue, in the form of a rock shaped like a right angle, can be seen on top of the huge 30-ton stone, the heaviest stone at Coral Castle. I think this was Ed’s way of saying that the secret of stone levitation involves having two things cross at a right angle. That’s the subject of my next post in this series.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Lattice Propulsion, Part II

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV

Abstract

In Part I, I wrote about how my lattice research drove me to learn about ancient megalithic societies. In my opinion, some ancient peoples did have contact with alien beings who taught them the secret technology of stone levitation among other things. Along the way, I found out that ancient megalithic builders had a few things in common such as astronomy, iron mining and a love of secrecy and riddles. In this post, I explain why my search took me to South Florida and why this is somehow related to the Great Pyramid of Egypt. If you have not already done so, please read Physics: The Problem With Motion, Understanding the Lattice and Part I of this article before continuing.

Why Iron?

In the previous post, I wrote that one of the things that caught my attention when I first read about it was the discovery, in 1837, of an iron plate wedged in an inner joint inside the Great Pyramid of Egypt. Why is that important? Well, if you remember from an older post, I wrote that I had been using aluminum foils in my initial levitation experiments. It didn’t work. The reason, as I pointed out, is that I had no way of forcing the seraphim flying between the foils to move along parallel trajectories. Eventually, I began to suspect that the problem was with my choice of aluminum. As far as we know, the ancients had no knowledge of aluminum. I figured that, if they had levitation technology, they must have used a known material that could somehow channel a coherent beam of seraphim moving along parallel trajectories.

If certain materials have magnetic properties, it would not be too farfetched to suppose that they might have one or more special electrostatic properties as well. After all, both electrostatic and magnetic fields involve the emission and absorption of seraphim. Of course, there are four different types of seraphim to deal with but an electrostatic charge still involves a type of seraphim. What if iron had special electrostatic properties in addition to its magnetic ones? At that point, owing to my years of failure, I was beginning to develop an aversion to half-baked experiments. I wanted to be sure. So I decided to do a search on the Internet to find instances where iron might have been involved in stone levitation in the past. My search soon led me to a man named Edward Leedskalnin.

Edward Leedskalnin Had a Little Secret

Ed Leedskalnin was a fascinating human being. A Latvian immigrant, he put his mark on the map of South Florida by erecting an amazing stone structure known as the Coral Castle, a tourist attraction near Homestead, southwest of Miami. Leedskalnin once famously claimed:
I have discovered the secrets of the pyramids, and have found out how the Egyptians and the ancient builders in Peru, Yucatan and Asia, with only primitive tools, raised and set in place blocks of stone weighing many tons!
That’s a rather interesting claim and one that would probably make the inventor either rich and famous or dead if it could be replicated. Ed was either lying or he was just a weird lone wolf inventor who did not care much about becoming rich. The claim could be easily dismissed if Ed had not supported it with actual evidence of his abilities: giant multi-ton blocks of coral stone erected into a massive albeit whimsical structure dedicated to his sweet sixteen. The scientific community wasted no time in dismissing Ed’s claim and calling him a crackpot and a loon, although I am not exactly sure on what basis. Their rejection, of course, was just what the rebel scientist in me needed to take the exact opposite view. To me, the very existence of the Coral Castle meant that Leedskalnin’s claim merited very careful investigation.

Something Big

I knew that Ed should have been taken seriously the moment I read about his strange infatuation with celestial alignments and the true cardinal directions. As I mentioned previously, I had long hypothesized that knowing the absolute axes of the universe was a necessary part of any lattice propulsion technology. But that’s not all of it. Ed once said, “I made more electricity with steel than I ever made with copper.” Wow. Steel is a form of iron, of course. So far so good, I thought to myself, but it could be better. It was then that I read the first sentence of Ed’s little book, Magnetic Current:
This writing is lined up so when you read it you look East, and all the description you will read about magnetic current, it will be just as good for your electricity.
Whoa! Hold on a second! Look east? Just as good for your electricity? Decades after he’s been dead and buried, Ed Leedskalnin had my full undivided attention. His prose is a little hard to decipher and I doubt that he really understood the theory behind his levitation technology, (he was close but he was no scholar, that’s for sure) but I think it’s important to delve a little into the meaning of that strange sentence. What Ed was really saying was that his description of magnetic current (including field orientation and current direction) is also valid for electricity but only if the reader (i.e., the experimenter) faces east. I remember jumping with excitement when I first understood this. From that point on, I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that the little Latvian immigrant, regardless of how nutty he may have been, was onto something big, something huge even. And then, suddenly, I realized that I understood the riddle of the Sphinx.

Why East?

Why is the Sphinx facing east? Well, that’s the real riddle of the Sphinx of Giza and the subject of my next post. There is a purpose and a plan to all this convoluted madness. Hang in there.

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Lattice Propulsion, Part I

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV

Abstract

In the two preceding articles (see links below), I argued that the application of the causality principle to motion leads to the conclusion that we are immersed in an immense lattice of energetic particles. I claimed that there is a way to tap into the lattice for both energy production and propulsion. I revealed that the main inspiration for my lattice hypothesis came from a few ancient metaphorical texts. In this multi-part article, I will describe (if all goes according to my plan) an experimental apparatus that almost anybody in the world can build at home to levitate a stone. But first, I would like to recount for my readers how I arrived at my current understanding. If you have not already done so, please read Physics: The Problem With Motion and Understanding the Lattice before continuing.

Cliffhanger

I ended my last post with a cliffhanger, I know. To recapitulate a little, I had realized many years ago that what I needed to levitate a stone was two perpendicular beams of seraphim. Remember that the word seraphim is the plural of seraph, a Hebrew word meaning ‘burning one’ or ‘shining one’. The metaphor is rather fitting since seraphim is a symbol for pure energetic particles. They are the constituents of an immense ocean of energy in which everything moves. In addition, my levitation hypothesis required that the seraphim in each beam should travel along parallel trajectories. I devised and performed various experiments but nothing came of it. I tried in vain to come up with a mechanism that would force the seraphim to move in parallel trajectories. This went on for years. And then I made another discovery.

Ancient Civilizations and Aliens

I had long suspected that a few ancient civilizations might have possessed the knowledge to levitate and effortlessly transport huge blocks of stones. We see possible examples of this in places like Stonehenge, Giza plateau, Baalbek, Easter Island, Tiahuanaco, Nazca and other places around the world. I also noted the vehement denial within mainstream archaeology that ancient people had any sort of advanced technology for moving large blocks of stones. And why should they not deny it? If ancient people did have some advanced technology, it would squarely contradict their worldview. Luckily for me, I had already developed a healthy distrust of the scientific community at that point in my research.

Nothing makes the blood of an archaeologist boil more violently than the suggestion that aliens might have had something to do with megalithic construction. Of course, being the hardcore unrepentant rebel that I am, I immediately felt that their reaction was sufficient cause for me to take the alien hypothesis seriously. I reasoned to myself, so what if ancient societies had contact with aliens? Why should that be so unbelievable compared to the unlikeliness of everything else? After all, almost every single written and oral tradition speaks of a distant era when humans had contact with powerful beings that they worshiped as deities. The archaeological/historical record is clear on this. Why should we dismiss all those accounts out of hand and classify them as mere religious myths just to appease a bunch of self-congratulating tale weavers and dirt diggers with a hidden agenda? What if some of the ancient myths were true? And what if the upper ruling classes of some ancient societies did receive secret scientific knowledge from their alien overlords? I think it would be cool if it were true. I would also think that, if ancient human wizards or high priests did have such advanced knowledge, they would have inadvertently left evidence of it for posterity to discover. As it turned out, they did.

Astronomy and the Absolute Axes of the Universe

The first clue that something weird was going on way back then was, of course, the sheer size of the megaliths. Some of the stone blocks at Baalbek were in the 1000-ton category. Those suckers were huge. That alone told me that the ancients knew something that was very special indeed. But I found several other equally interesting clues. It seems that megalithic societies had a fascination with astronomy and the precise location of true north. That, to me, was a very powerful clue because I had long ago hypothesized that any levitation technology would have to incorporate knowledge of the absolute axes of the universe. (Forget the silly dogma of the hopelessly deceived relativist crowd for now; you know, the one according to which there are no absolute directions in the universe. I'll have many bad things to say about relativity in the future). I had reasoned that knowing the precise direction of the cardinal points could easily serve as a fixed reference for lattice orientation purposes. It did not escape my notice that the Sphinx at Giza is facing true east. The Sphinx almost certainly had the head of a lion to match the rest of its body when it was originally erected. This is significant because one of the six-winged creatures in John’s occult little book also has the face of a lion. See my last post for context.

The Mysterious Iron Plate

One of the things that immediately caught my attention when I first read about it was the discovery of an iron plate in the great Pyramid in 1837. The plate was apparently wedged in an inner joint and was dislodged when explosives were used to clear the outer blocks. It follows that the plate was placed there during the building of the pyramid. This got me to thinking about something else that I had read. An Arab historian of the 10th century by the name of Masoudi had something rather interesting to say regarding the transportation of large blocks of stones during the construction of the pyramids:
In carrying on the work, leaves of papyrus, or paper, inscribed with certain characters, were placed under the stones prepared in the quarries; and upon being struck, the blocks were moved at each time the distance of a bowshot and so by degrees arrived at the pyramids.
I suspected that maybe Masoudi was reporting on legends handed down through the descendents of the original workers who helped build the pyramids. Of course, the workers had no idea what was going on and most likely attributed the levitation to the powerful magic of the high priests. But what if, I reasoned, the papyrus leaves were metal sheets covered with papyrus so as to hide the fact they were actually metallic? What if the sheets were made of iron? What if the iron plate found wedged in the Great Pyramid was part of the technology used to levitate the blocks? Very interesting indeed.

Iron Everywhere

My next thought was that, if iron was an important technological component of stone levitation used in the building of the great pyramids of Giza, it must have been equally important to the construction of other megalithic structures around the world. As recently as January of last year, it was reported that an ancient iron mine was found in the Andes, not far from the Nazca lines in Peru and only a few hundred miles from Tiahuanaco in Bolivia near lake Titicaca and the Peruvian border. I could not find any iron connected with Stonehenge but there is no doubt that iron mining was already practiced in Europe by the time of its construction. Hopefully, the current digs at Stonehenge will uncover something exciting in this vein. But years before the discovery of the iron mine in the Andes made the news, my search had taken me to the most unlikely place of all, South Florida. That’s the subject of my next post.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Understanding the Lattice, Part IV

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV

Abstract

In Part III, I described what happens during particle interactions and I introduced the concept of a particle’s face (somewhat similar to particle spin in conventional physics). I claimed that there is a way to use the energy of the lattice to create a non-Newtonian force for acceleration. In this post, I will reveal more about the technology that will exploit the lattice energy for propulsion and energy production. But first, I want to recount how I arrived at my current lattice hypothesis. This is where it gets really weird and beautiful at the same time. It’s weird because it looks really loony (I'm a crazy loon, I know) at first glance. Indeed, this is one of the things that my detractors often use to disparage me to their heart’s content. It’s beautiful because this is precisely what will vindicate me to the eternal chagrin of my enemies. I have many of those, as some of you can tell, and they hate me with passion. The feeling is mutual, of course. If you have not already done so, please read Physics: The Problem With Motion and the first three parts of this article before continuing.

Crackpottery in High Places

It all started, many years ago, when I resolved in my mind to find a causal explanation for gravity. At the time, I was thoroughly frustrated by all the textbook non-explanations based mostly on mathematical equations that only scratched the surface. I knew instinctively that, unless one understood the foundational aspects of the universe, one understood very little. My quest led me to many dead ends, mostly as a result of my having been taught to believe in a bunch of erroneous ideas. I found myself retracing my steps so many times that, at times, I despaired of ever achieving my goal. But I kept at it and all my false preconceived notions began to fall away, one by one, like scales from a blind man’s eyes. What follows is a partial list of some of the false assumptions held by the physics community. Some of this stuff is absurd to the point of silliness.
  1. The relativity of motion, or the dogma according to which only relative motion and position exist in the universe. It turned out that the exact opposite is true. Only the absolute exists and the relative is abstract.
  2. Acausal motion, or the assumption that nothing keeps a moving particle in motion or that it is entirely due to inertia and momentum. The truth is that neither inertia nor momentum is physical; they are mere abstract mathematical constructs. Cause and effect in physics involve a physical interaction.
  3. Continuity, or the notion that things (e.g., a line or a surface) can be infinitely divisible. In reality, the universe is discrete.
  4. Space, or the idea that everything exists and moves within some volume or expanse. There is no space, of course, something that can be proven with trivial logic.
  5. Time, or the notion that time is a physical dimension or that we are moving toward the future at one second per second. In fact, a time dimension would make motion impossible. Surprise!
  6. Spacetime, or the belief that we are moving in both time and space. There is no spacetime, of course, since nothing can move in it. Ha!
  7. Big Bang, black holes, wormholes, accelerated expansion of the universe, parallel universes and time travel; Star-Trek physics at its best.
  8. Virtual particles, or the ghost particles of physics; pure hocus-pocus.
  9. Particle/wave duality or the idea that a particle can be both particulate and ondulatory at the same time; more hocus-pocus.
  10. Superposition or the idea that quantum properties can have multiple states simultaneously; not even wrong.
There are more but these are some of the main ones. I will reprint the list with additions in a future article. What powerful spirit of deception could have caused the physics community to believe in such blatant nonsense? I may never know.

Surprising Origin of Faces, Bodies and Wings

Some of you may be wondering why I chose symbols like wings, bodies and faces to label various properties of particles. Indeed, why not adopt the same terminology used by physicists? After all, mass, energy, kinetic energy, quantum spin, etc., are familiar terms used in the physics literature. I have three reasons for my choice:

First, there is simply too much deceptive and cumbersome baggage attached to the academic terms. It would be impossible to clear the misconceptions.

Second, I think that wings, bodies and faces are perfect metaphors for the particle properties that they each symbolize. Wing conveys the notion of flight or gliding motion, which is what happens when a particle moves in the lattice; body sounds like a place to store energy; and face is an exquisitely suggestive metaphor for the orientation of a particle.

Last but not least, I could never have gotten to where I am in my research had it not been for an amazing discovery I made many years ago. I noticed that certain Biblical metaphorical passages written thousands of years ago bore a striking resemblance to the model of the universe that I was beginning to form in my mind. I am talking about the passage in the book of Revelation in which a Jewish exile named John described his vision of a sea of glass like crystal, a vast expanse in which there were four creatures, each with a different face and each having six wings:
Rev. 4:6-8
Before the throne there was a sea of glass, like crystal. And in the midst of the throne, and around the throne, were four living creatures full of eyes in front and in back. The first living creature was like a lion, the second living creature like a calf, the third living creature had a face like a man, and the fourth living creature was like a flying eagle. The four living creatures, each having six wings, were full of eyes around and within.
I was immediately struck by the correspondence between my lattice model and John’s symbolic vision of the sea of glass and the four creatures (I will explain the meaning of the eyes symbol in a future article). It then slowly dawned on me that the book of Revelation was not at all what Christians (and others) thought it was.

The Burning Ones or Searching for the Master Key

In my previous post, I wrote that there is a way to accelerate particles of matter without expanding energy in the traditional Newtonian sense, the assumption being that the energy will come from the lattice. I hinted that the technology involves electrostatic fields and the absolute axes of the universe. There is more to it than that, of course. I had known for a long time that the secret lied in gaining a complete understanding of the properties of the lattice particles. But trying to decipher what those properties were from the available evidence looked nigh impossible. There were just too many variables.

At first, I thought that an LP (lattice particle) should use three wings at a time in order to move in the lattice, depending on its absolute direction of motion. I played with that false assumption for years with no breakthrough. I would have never made any progress beyond that had I not made another amazing discovery. I found out that John was not the first one to write about those strange six-winged creatures. An Old Testament prophet by the name of Isaiah had written about them centuries earlier. Only, Isaiah called them Seraphim (the burning or shining ones) and described two additional features missing in John’s account: the symbolic creatures also had feet and used only two wings at a time to fly.
Isaiah 6:2
Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.
I had to meditate on this for quite a long time before it finally sank in. Eventually, I realized that Isaiah's strange two-wing restriction to the motion of the LPs (seraphim) was the master key I was searching for. That is to say, it was the main secret of the lattice, the secret that will allow us to use it for propulsion and energy production.

The Experiments

I knew (for reasons that I will explain in a future article) that what I needed was two beams of seraphim crossing each other at right angles. I figured out that, in each beam, the particles should be moving along parallel paths. I immediately began devising a set of experiments to test my hypothesis. I knew that applying a difference of potential, i.e., a DC voltage, to two metal plates (kind of like a capacitor) would cause seraphim to fly from one plate to another in a given direction but I could not come up with a mechanism that would force the particles to travel along strictly parallel trajectories perpendicular to the plates. I tried different designs using aluminum foils and different voltage levels. I tried positioning the experimental apparatus to face many different directions. None of it worked. This went on for a long time (years) and the whole thing was beginning to depress me to no end. And then I discovered something else.

Next: Lattice Propulsion

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Understanding the Lattice, Part III

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV

Abstract

In Part II, I wrote that a particle in motion undergoes a series of absorption/decay events. I explained why the universe is probabilistic and I railed against quantum state superposition, the basis of the quack science known as quantum computing. I wrote that, once dislodged from its position of origin in the lattice, an LP (lattice particle) moves at the speed of light and interacts only with other LPs of equal energy. In this post I explain why particles interact and why there are four types of LPs. I also describe how a normal massive particle interacts with an LP. Finally, I go over what must be done in order to take advantage of the lattice for propulsion. If you have not already done so, please read Physics: The Problem With Motion and the first two parts of this article before continuing.

Lattice Energies

Some of you may be wondering why an LP is initially at rest in the lattice even though there are a huge number of other LPs located at the same position. The reason is that no two LPs at any original position in the lattice have the same energy level. But why have so many LPs at every position in the lattice? The answer is that the lattice must be able to sustain the motion of a huge variety of massive particles moving at every possible speed up to the speed of light. Obviously, it takes a lot less energy to move an electron than it does to move a proton.

In Part I, I wrote that massive particles have bodies (mass) and wings (kinetic energy) and that body energy can be transferred to the wings and vice versa. I also stated that a particle is moving at the speed of light if all of its energy is contained in its wings. At half the speed of light, only half the particle’s energy is contained in its wings. It follows that it takes twice as much energy to move a particle of rest mass x at a given speed v than it does to move a particle of rest mass x/2 at the same speed v. Note again that this is all governed by probabilities. I’ll get back to probabilities in future posts.

LP Initialization

Before its initial interaction, an LP is in what I call an undefined or non-initialized state. In such a state, the energy in each of an LP’s wings is not defined. After interaction, an LP is primed to travel in a specific direction determined by the properties of the other interacting particle. That is to say, each of the LP’s wings has a specific energy value. The total energy contained in the wings of an LP is equal to the energy level for that LP; remember that only LPs having equal energy levels can interact.

When a moving LP encounters a massive particle, it is already initialized and its wings have set energy values. Obviously, how and whether two particles interact is determined by their intrinsic properties and the states of those properties. The probability that two particles will interact also depends on their proximity. The closer they are to each other, the more likely they may interact. I’ll explain why this is true in a future post.

Virtual Photons, Faces and Orientations

My thesis is that all electromagnetic effects are due to interactions between normal matter particles and LPs. What the physicist calls a virtual photon is what I call an LP except that I don’t subscribe to the pseudoscientific notion of particle/wave duality (more on duality in a future post).

[Of course, calling a particle virtual because you cannot account for its energy in your model is lame to the core. Physics via labeling is crap, period. As you may have noticed, I do not miss a single opportunity to heap scorn and ridicule on the physics community. It's the rebel in me.]

I hypothesize that magnetic fields are the result of certain particles (not necessarily charged particles but having a certain spatial orientation) moving in the three spatial dimensions, whereas the electrostatic field is due to charged particles moving along the fourth dimension. I further hypothesize that there must be four different types of LPs. Three observations form the basis of my EM/lattice hypothesis. The first is that the orientation of a magnetic field is dependent on the direction of the moving particles that cause it; the second is the descriptions of polarized light in the literature; and the third is the polarization of the electrostatic charge. The difference between the four types of LP has to do with the way they are facing, that is to say, with their orientation.
Every particle must have at least one intrinsic property that determines its orientation. This is the meaning of the face symbol in my depiction of an LP above. Think of a face property as the ability of a particle to align itself in a given direction on a dimension. There is a face for each of the four dimensions of the universe. In addition, since every dimension has two directions, a face property likewise has two possible states. In other words, every LP can face in either of two directions. The closest analog to the face property in conventional physics is the so-called quantum spin of a particle. Of course, physicists (and science geeks in general) have a way of complicating the hell out of simple concepts to the point where they alienate many who might otherwise be interested in science. Note also that conventional physics does not associate spins with the four dimensions as I do in this hypothesis. I’ll get back to electromagnetism and spin in an upcoming article.

Recap: Particles, Properties and Principles

So far in this series, I’ve mentioned several particle properties related to the causality of motion and a few principles that govern particles and their properties. It’s good to keep them in mind as we move along. Here’s what we’ve got so far.
  1. There are two types of energy properties, body and wing. The former is analogous to mass energy while the latter is similar to kinetic energy.
  2. All particles have wings and some have bodies. LPs only have wings.
  3. Every LP has three pairs of wings, one pair for each spatial dimension.
  4. The total energy of a particle (body + wings) is conserved. That is to say, it stays the same always, whether or not the particle is moving.
  5. Body energy can be transferred to the wings and vice versa.
  6. A particle is at absolute rest if its entire energy is contained in its body.
  7. A particle moves at the speed of light if its entire energy is contained in its wings.
  8. At every discrete position in the lattice, there is a huge number of LPs, one for each possible energy level up to a maximum value.
  9. Two LPs interact only if their positions are equal and they have equal energy levels and the same orientation (face).
I will add to the list as I continue this series.

How Can We Use the Lattice for Propulsion?

Most people would be surprised to learn that we are already using the lattice for propulsion. Indeed, every particle of matter that moves does so as a result of its interactions with the lattice. This is fine and dandy for inertial motion but how can we use the lattice for vehicular propulsion, i.e., for acceleration? In other words, how can we obtain a usesable force from the lattice? Remember that, according to this hypothesis, the normal way of accelerating a particle is to apply an external Newtonian force so as to change the particle’s energy signature. In other words, the force causes energy to be transferred from the particle’s body (mass) to its wings (kinetic energy).

Is there a way to accelerate a particle without using a Newtonian force? In other words, is there a way to do it by taking advantage of the energy of the lattice?

To answer these questions, we must figure out what happens when a moving lattice particle (MLP) encounters a normal massive particle such as an electron. Obviously, the nature of the ensuing interaction depends on the states of the intrinsic properties of the particles involved.
For the sake of simplicity, let’s suppose that an MLP collides with an electron that is at rest. In other words, let’s say a resting electron temporarily absorbs a moving LP. An electron at rest has all of its energy in its body. The ensuing interaction will cause the electron to move away from the point of interaction in a certain direction dictated by the orientation (face direction) of the MLP, the energies contained in its wings and the orientation of the electron. A discrete jump is a reaction to an imbalance caused when one particle absorbs another and the two temporarily become one. So, why does the absorption of an LP by an electron constitute an imbalance? The reason has to do with conservation. Indeed, all interactions are due to nature correcting a violation to a conservation principle. In this case, the total energy of a particle must be conserved (see list above) to maintain a balance with the rest of the universe. However, the absorption disturbs the balance, i.e., causes an imbalance. In its attempt to correct the situation, nature causes the electron to transfer energy from its body to its wings so as to counteract the imbalance caused by the wings of the MLP. This, in turn, causes the electron to immediately begin to move in the lattice.

Upcoming

So, the answer to the italicized questions I posed in the previous section is that we must cause particles of matter to transfer energy from their bodies to their wings without expanding energy in the Newtonian sense. That is to say, we must use the lattice energy to generate a non-Newtonian force. This is the subject of my next post in this series. Let me come right out and say that it involves the use of electrostatic fields and the identification of the absolute axes of the universe about which I wrote in a previous post. Remember, the lattice is your friend.

Friday, October 2, 2009

Understanding the Lattice, Part II

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV

Abstract

In Part I, I introduced a new approach to doing physics. I called it particle-centric physics, as opposed to observer-centric physics. I described two types of particle properties, body and wing, and a few principles that govern their nature. I wrote that a lattice particle has wings but no body, which causes it to travel at the speed of light once moved from its original position in the lattice. Finally, I claimed that any technology that purports to tap into the lattice for energy production or propulsion would have to identify the absolute axes of the universe. In this post, I argue that the universe is necessarily probabilistic and that every interaction is really an absorption/decay phenomenon. I argue against the concept of superposition and I explain why lattice particles travel at the speed of light as soon as they are dislodged from their original rest positions in the lattice. Please read Physics: The Problem With Motion before continuing.

An Interaction Is an Absorption/Decay Phenomenon

As I have maintained repeatedly elsewhere, the motion of a particle consists of a series of minute discrete jumps caused by interactions with a particulate lattice. When you think about it for as long as I have, you eventually realize that an interaction is really an absorption/decay phenomenon and that a particle in motion is undergoing a series of absorption/decay events.

During an interaction, the moving particle absorbs an LP (lattice particle) and then, after a given interval related to speed, a decay event (or jump) occurs and the two particles move away from each other in different directions. The interval between absorption and decay is directly tied, on average, to the energies involved. The line in the diagram above is there only for illustration. There is no in-between distance between two adjacent positions in the lattice. The curved arrow is also there for illustration purposes. During a jump, the particle just changes position.

Probabilistic Universe

I say on average above because the timing of an interaction is probabilistic. By this I mean that the interval between the absorption event and the decay event is not exact. Nature is forced to use probability because it cannot set the exact duration of an interaction based on the energies involved. Why? Because the only interval that nature has to work with is the fundamental discrete interval (jump interval). It turns out that time is abstract and cannot exist physically. This sounds crackpottish, I know, but the logic behind it is rock solid.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, a physical time dimension would make change impossible. This is not something that is well known in the physics community, as most physicists would be surprised to learn that nothing can move in spacetime (surprise!). In Conjectures and Refutations, Sir Karl Popper compared Einstein’s spacetime to Parmenides’ block universe in which nothing happens. Of course, nobody in the physics community would have dared to contradict Sir Karl on this one, as he would have ripped them a new orifice. So they ignored him and kept on publishing papers and articles about how particles travel along their geodesics in curved spacetime and how curved spacetime causes gravity. The absurdity never ends in the physics community.

The way it really works is as follows. At every instant, nature is presented with multiple sets of interactions to resolve. Each set has a specific probability of decaying based on the energies involved. Nature just randomly selects a percentage of the particles in a set for decay. Let’s say every particle in a set has a fifty percent chance of decaying at a given instant. Nature would then cause half of the particles (selected at random) to decay at that particular instant. Even the inertial motion of a particle is not immune to this. Over the long run, it may look as if the interval between any two jumps is the same everywhere but it is not. It just averages out to a value that depends on the energies involved.

Religion of Cretins

Physicists enjoy amazing a wide-eyed and credulous public with tall tales of quantum particles having multiple states at the same time, decayed and not decayed. They love to recite how the mere fact of observing the particle causes a fairy creature known as the wave function to collapse, revealing either one state or the other. They call it superposition and they’ve even created a whole new field around it called quantum computing. Needless to say, it’s all a bunch of hocus-pocus, in the not even wrong category. One of their own, Erwin Schrödinger, a Nobel laureate and himself a devotee of the religion, invented a thought experiment known as Schrödinger’s cat in order to illustrate the high strangeness, if not the outright crackpottery of it all. Unfortunately, the religion had already taken off and nothing could stop it.

Superposition is crackpottery on the face of it, as any young child can tell you that nothing can be both left and right at the same time. Superposition, quantum computing, acausal motion, exclusive relativity, flat earth, time travel and continuity, are all sacraments of the same religion, a religion of cretins to be exact. Only the physics community can get away with such absurdities. The truth is that particle interactions are probabilistic simply because the exact timing of interactions cannot be calculated. It has nothing to do with particle properties having multiple simultaneous states or any such silly nonsense. If the precise state of a particle did not exist at every instant, nature would have no way of determining the probability of it interacting with another particle. It’s simple logic.

Lattice Dynamics

Why do LPs travel at the speed of light? How is the probabilistic interval between an absorption event and a decay event determined? My research has revealed that two interacting particles will immediately decay or expel each other without delay if they both have equal interacting energies. So, in order for an LP to travel at the speed of light, it must interact with a series of other lattice particles each of which has an energy level equal to its own. It follows that, at every discrete position of the lattice, there is a huge number of LPs, one for every possible energy level up to the highest level needed to move the most massive particle of normal matter. It also follows that a lattice particle can interact only with another particle of equal energy level.

Upcoming
The figure above is a symbolic representation of a lattice particle. There are two wings, positive and negative, for each of the three spatial dimensions. The face symbol is new. I will explain its significance in Part III. In addition, I will explain exactly why two particles interact and how lattice particles interact with normal massive particles (e.g., an electron). This will shed new light on interactions. Finally, I will write about what can be done in order to exploit the lattice for propulsion and energy production.

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Understanding the Lattice, Part I

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV

Abstract

In my recent series on motion, I defended the thesis that motion is a causal phenomenon and that, as a result, we are moving in an immense, crystal-like lattice of energetic particles. No lattice = no motion. My claim is that, when we fully understand the properties of the lattice and how it interacts with normal matter, we will enter an age of essentially unlimited clean energy and extremely fast travel. In The Problem With Motion, Part IV, I explained why the lattice is 4-dimensional and why the discreteness of motion means that there is only one speed in nature, the speed of light. In this post, I introduce what I call particle-centric (as opposed to observer-centric) physics. I describe a few essential properties of particles and I argue that all motion occur along fixed or absolute axes.

Be the Particle

I think the entire observer-centric approach to physics is hopelessly boneheaded. It can only scratch the surface of what is really out there. The truly foundational and powerful stuff remains forever beyond its reach. What is needed is a particle-centric physics, that is, one that models reality from the point of view of particles, so to speak. Why? Simply because the universe could not give a rat’s ass about observers. Come to think of it, where did that observer-based reality nonsense come from anyway? It’s another one of those things that infuriate me about physics.

To truly understand why a particle behaves in certain ways, a physicist must take the place of the particle in his or her mind and imagine the types of properties and interactions that are needed to cause the particle to behave the way it does. "Be the particle!" should be the physicist's main motto. Consequently, as the particle, one must ask oneself pertinent questions such as: Why should I move? Why should I move in this particular direction? And why should I move at that particular speed? Only by asking why-type questions will we gain a deep understanding of the universe.

Bodies and Wings

A throrough understanding of particle behavior calls for building a model that describes the properties and interactions involved in making it happen. My research has led me to conclude that every particle must have at least one of two types of energy properties. I call these properties body and wing (I’ll explain my choice of terminology in a future article). You can think of bodies as mass energy and of wings as kinetic energy. All particles have wings but some have both bodies and wings while others have no body. Here are a few essential principles that govern bodies and wings.
  1. The total energy of a particle (body + wings) is conserved. That is to say, it stays the same always, whether or not the particle is moving.
  2. Body energy can be transferred to the wings and vice versa.
  3. A particle is at absolute rest if its entire energy is contained in its body.
  4. A particle moves at the speed of light if its entire energy is contained in its wings.
There are several other equally important principles having to do with particle interactions but that’s the subject of my next post.

Applicability of Newtonian Physics

The first principle in the list above is the reason for the familiar Newtonian principle of the conservation of momentum. The first and second principles together imply that using a Newtonian force to accelerate a particle does not change its energy. It only transfers some energy from its body to its wings or vice versa. Newtonian physics works adequately only at ordinary speeds. At those speeds, only an exceedingly small fraction of a particle’s total energy is contained in its wings. Consequently, it is safe to assume that the mass (body) of a particle is invariant in most situations. By contrast, at half the speed of light, a particle’s body and wings contain equal amounts of energy. Newtonian equations would not work properly at that speed because the particle’s mass is only one half its original or rest value. For now, forget about the relativist nonsense according to which the mass of a body increases toward infinity as it approaches the speed of light. I’ll get back to this in an upcoming post.

Lattice Particles

I have a special name for lattice particles but I cannot reveal it at this time, as it would disrupt my long-term strategy. Let’s just call them LPs for now. The main difference between an LP and an ordinary particle like the electron is that the former has no body (no mass) while the latter has both body and wings. An LP only has wings and, as a result, moves at the speed of light. Previously, I wrote that every particle must have three wings, one for each dimension of ordinary space. Actually, I should have said three pairs of wings or six wings altogether. Each pair consists of a positive wing and negative wing. Why? Because there are two directions for each dimension.

I also wrote that all particles in the entire universe are moving at the speed of light in the fourth dimension. One would think that a fourth pair of wings is needed for motion in the fourth dimension and one would be only partially right. The reason is that the motion of the universe along the fourth dimension is special. It’s special because it cannot be messed with, that is, it must happen no matter what and it cannot miss a beat. In a future article, I will explain why this is directly connected to gravity. I know, mysteries are piling up. But lattice physics is not about creating mysteries but unraveling old ones.

The Absolute Axes of the Universe

A dimension is not a property of space. Space (distance) is an illusion of perception. It is a useful but abstract concept that we use for navigation. It helps us to make sense of the relationships between objects. The idea that there is some space that is extrinsic to particles and in which they move, is one that is dead on arrival. I explain why elsewhere. A dimension is a degree of freedom, or separation. It is an abstract concept. It is a means by which the universe can determine whether two particles are either together or separated and, if separated, by how much. This is important because this is how the universe can tell whether or not there has been a violation of a conservation principle.

A 1-dimensional universe is one in which every particle has one and only one positional property. A universe with four dimensions means that particles have four positional properties. A discrete universe means that there are only discrete dimensions. In other words, all motion occurs along fixed absolute axes. Consequently, and in contrast to the relativist’s lame denial of absolute directions, any technology that purports to tap into the lattice for energy production and propulsion will have to identify the absolute axes of the universe. As I will explain in a future post, this will be an essential requirement of all lattice-based propulsion systems.

Upcoming

In Part II, I will go over particle interactions. I will explain why there are four types of lattice particles and why they travel at the speed of light the moment they are dislodged from their original positions in the lattice. I will also have a few things to say about particle decay and, especially, the reason behind the probabilistic nature of decay. As it turns out, all interactions (hence, motion) are probabilistic.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

More on the Lattice...

I am preparing two more posts on The Problem With Motion series. Coming soon.

[9/27/2009]

As promised, see Understanding the Lattice, Part I.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Floating Sky Cities, Unlimited Clean Energy, Earth to Mars in Hours...

Wasted Money

A huge amount of money is being spent around the world on alternate energy and environmentally friendly transportation. I think all this money is being wasted because there is clear evidence that we are swimming in an ocean of clean energy, lots and lots of it. And here is why.

Magic

Physicists believe that two particles in relative inertial motion stay in motion for no reason at all, as if by magic. The truth is that every effect must have a cause. An analysis of the causality of motion leads to the inevitable conclusion that we are swimming in energy, in an immense lattice of wall-to-wall energetic particles, to be precise.

The Future

Soon, we will figure out how to tap into the lattice for energy production and transportation. It will be an age of practically unlimited free energy and extremely fast transportation. Vehicles will have no need for wheels, will go almost anywhere at enormous speeds and negotiate right angle turns without slowing down and without incurring any damage as a result of inertial effects. Floating sky cities impervious to earthquakes and tsunamis, unlimited clean energy, earth to Mars in hours, New York to Beijing in minutes. That’s the future of energy and travel.

Read Physics: The Problem With Motion for more.