Notable Correspondence
Letters to GentleYami


This is a collection of discussions over two years between Jon and his penpal "GentleYami", also known as Dudley.


(Jon)    Protons and Neutrons are collections of electrons and positrons.  Did you know that Protons and Neutrons do not orbit one another, but rather they morph back and forth from Proton to Neutron to Proton by trading and flipping a single Quark.

Anyway, instead of a point source of energy, electrons have no intrinsic energy at all.  The energy comes from space-time attempting to fill the void, falling in at the speed of light but unable to penetrate the spinning sheath.

Once you turn conventional wisdom upside down and inside out, you find the truth.

The truth is:  Everything is made of Nothing.

Matter is Energy and Energy is Space-Time.  Space-Time is moving Space.  Energy is the time dimension, Time is energy, E = Delta T multiplied by c squared.  That is:  to calculate the amount of energy in time multiply the amount of change in time by the square of the speed of light.  It's a gosh number!

We are Plasma Time creatures living in a condensed energy (matter) environment.  We are composed of intense swirling space-time, separate from other space-time, but made up of it.  Are you starting to see the interconnected dimensions within and without swirling space-time?

Time is a unique dimension which connects all of space.  Any point in time is not the same everywhere at once.  It is this attribute of time that causes quantum weirdness; action at a distance,  faster than light speed, and entanglement.

(GentleYami)     that is amazing....I love this

You and I seem to feel the same way about space time...almost feeling it in a different way than most people...like synthesis...I like how you describe it as swirling

I'll have to think on this and digest it...there's a lot here

I have to admit my ignorance, I'm only science enthusiast.  just a fan.  reading your email is fascinating to me.  Being a simple person as I am...  I see things in simple terms.  I see 'something' such as your sheath of space time.....to me....the sheath is the ability of 'something' to maintain itself in a stable state.

Something will always loop around on itself to overcome the limitations of the finite... I lean towards a cyclic view of the universe.

Why do animals eat other animals? Why do black holes consume gas and matter?  Something uses itself to sustain an existence.... Kind of a way of cheating nothing.

I love reading metaphysical things.... new age spiritualism.... because it describes a dimension where time and space does not exist. In 'spirit' or the after life they say... time means nothing.... distance means nothing... there is no space time... only thought.

Basically like the movie 'What Dreams May Come' with Robin Williams. You'd have thought created realities.... if all you are is pure thought... your fantasies are literally your universe.  You determine the laws of physics.

This is relevant because it goes back to what  you said about how we are pieces of space time... independent but always connected.  we are composed of this universe so of course we are limited by the laws of this universe... if we're not made of space time any longer... then we are free.... but disconnected, and maybe never able to make the trip back... Which might be why there can be no proof of extra dimensions or an afterlife for that matter. It would have to be a one way trip.  We can't disconnect from space time any more than we can pull off our left arm.  The only thing that is able to make this disconnection is our thoughts.

And they are... now as we keep writing to each other.

Quantum weirdness is a real puzzle to me, but I love hearing about it.  I don't know if time is behind the scenes on that one... It feels more like a basement of what's going on on in the city streets above it.  the world works perfectly. I'm sitting here typing but yet just by identifying something at that level actually changes it and not only it..something somewhere else... wow, reminds me of when they work on anything genetic... When they change this sequence or code some crazy thing happens and they don't know why at all. But they can map out what they did and know if they do this then this happens.   I saw where they are actually working on quantum computers... Seems we don't really understand what's going on but we know how to manipulate what's going to happen.

Please give my best to Dudley (Jon's dog is also named Dudley).  It's already been a real pleasure writing to you.

I hope I can help even if it's a small contribution in some way.


"I see 'something' such as your sheath of space time... to me... the sheath is the ability of 'something' to maintain itself in a stable state."

(Jon)     That's the kind of thinking I need to compliment my style.  I admit to being too negative, you are right, the stable "something" is the boundary sheath resonance, which is a standing wave of immense stability and impenetrability.

"something will always loop around on itself to overcome the limitations of the finite.... I lean towards a cyclic view of the universe."

(Jon)     I absolutely agree that this universe is continuing to regenerate.  The cosmic view today is incomplete, even scientists admit they do not fully understand the evidence.  Muses had an advanced concept of the structure of time (he called his theory Chronotopology), which is the structure of the universe.  It is like a cornucopia.


"Why do animals eat other animals? Why do black holes consume gas and matter?  Something uses itself to sustain an existence.... Kind of a way of cheating nothing."

(Jon)     Cheating nothing... I love it.  Wish I had thought of it, but that's a concept worth dwelling on.  Something bootstrapping itself.  The ever flowing cornucopia.  We must include this thought in the book.


"Basically like the movie 'What Dreams May Come' with Robin Williams. You'd have thought created realities.... if all you are is pure thought... your fantasies are literally your universe.  You determine the laws of physics."

(Jon)     In my Sixty-plus years I have witnessed people creating their own realities, you would be surprised how much power there is in concentrated thought.  Some call it prayer, it works even if you are not religious.  Your thoughts will bring to you what you want.  Your thoughts can also destroy you if you do not know self control.  The laws of physics only work most of the time... not all of the time (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal).  It is possible to bend or even break basic laws of physics for short time periods over a small space.  But everything averages out.  Never underestimate the power of the mind to influence events, the brain is a powerful quantum transceiver connected to every other brain on earth.  It constantly interacts in the background with reality and projected reality (dreams).  You can cast thoughts, at least I can, and I'm no better than you, so I assume you can too.  I read thoughts, so you must also.  It is a common trait which they try to educate out of us, but Thought casting can be very helpful.  Some people use it wrongly, casting dreadful spells.  It works better if it is used for constructive purposes.


"Reminds me of when they work on anything genetic... When they change this sequence or code some crazy thing happens and they don't know why at all... But they can map out what they did and know if they do this then this happens."

(Jon)     Oh, you hit on one of my pet peeves, I hate genetically modified anything.  We are not smart enough for this line of inquiry, we are not gods (more like devils).  This form of science is stupefying, like Edison plodding along with experiment after experiment, failure after failure, over 6000 of them, before deciding on Tungsten filaments.  We have been saddled over a hundred years with inferior technology because it made lots of money.  Now we are converting to Tesla style lamps, many times more efficient than Edison lamps, but suppressed for over a century!  Watch out for money influenced genetics, it is wicked, mean and nasty.  Remember, the Nazis were doing this genetic "science" before WWII.

Col. Tom Bearden was a nuclear engineer in the army, and studied Russian energy technology in the '70s and '80s.  He is one truly avant guard thinker.  See if you agree with his logic and mathematics concerning negative energy...



(GentleYami)     I have started reading it and am loving what I'm reading so far...I wanted to send a reply even before I finished it.

Sounds like they're poking at the theory of everything... Branes and strings at first then they get into what I find very interesting.

Measurements as a matter of convenience and that everything is a function of energy.... A better way to communicate what I often call 'something'

It reminds me of the matrix movie where their reality was an illusion, and that can be true in a way I think... But opinions about reality and perception always amaze me....

I heard on a show that man is the universe's way of trying to understand itself.  I liked that and I lean more to that than to the idea that our perceptions are a reality.... I don't buy that, not in this universe anyways.

I feel we just need to trust our sense of the world a little more than just saying our attempt to measure the environment around us will reveal the binary behind the cg curtain

We're here. We exist.  They need to stop complicating the obvious.

I like how they focus on minutia of 'what is what?' looking at energy/something and trying to figure it out. You have to be careful with that... It's like thinking about a word for too long... And before long you're wondering why you use those sounds to make up that word and then you don't want to say the word because it just sounds alien to you.

but I love this statement:

"The short solution to begin unifying our models of nature is this: Spacetime, the virtual state vacuum, and energy are identically all one and the same thing."

That really falls into your lap for your book... this goes back to 'nothing'  This is why you and I look at 'spacetime' as a spinning swirling independent diversified thing, but still the same 'thing'

This is what we've been thinking all along N=S... Nothing equals Something.

"All of physics presently regards energy as "something different from" spacetime, and that is "in" the "separate background spacetime". That is flatly wrong."

I wholeheartedly agree with that statement.

Any change in spacetime is automatically a change in the virtual state vacuum, and vice versa.  We do not regard vacuum as something "occupying" spacetime, but identically as spacetime itself.

This reminds me of a recent theory where someone suggested dark matter and dark energy are part of the same thing just different manifestations.... and I agree with that idea as well.  because like you're saying here... it's all space time... baryonic or mystery meat (dark matter/energy). It's all 'something' continually establishing and continually replenishing the associated "static" fields – simply steadily creates (from nothing at all) that real, observable EM energy flow.

I like how they say 'from nothing at all'

But in precursor engineering, one must keep ALL the models (in all of physics) in one's mind, because BY ENGINEERING SPACETIME/VACUUM/ENERGY ITSELF, DIRECTLY, one is actually engineering reality itself, in the NONOBSERVABLE form

I addressed this last time.  The only asset in our tool box of life that can break free the bonds of space time is our thoughts.... this opens a door of possibility to talk of other dimensions.... afterlife.. new age stuff... but it doesn't change this reality or we'd all have telekinesis and it'd be a medically documented fact

I can't wish I would draw the right card as I'm playing yugioh (hobby of mine) and it just 'poof' happens.... it's all probability...
well.... but what if.... you're a spiritualist... and you believe the non physical consciousness is free of being chained to the space time grid... and they can interact in the past to affect the events at the present... I dunno.... Who's to say?  some people are just strangely 'lucky'

Eerily, to get rid of negative energy, the physicists actually put forward the notion that mass-energy violates simple arithmetic! That is, since the "vacuum" or "space" is or has zero mass (and thus zero mass-energy)

dead wrong here.... this is saying that we can create a stable 'nothing' even in mathematic models... there is no absolute zero.... because the zero itself exists as an attempt at measurement... you can't measure nothing..... if there was a stable theoretic nothing then like some quantum reorganization it wipes out all of existence to stabilize a perfect state, and since I'm here typing (or at least '''think'''' I am ...LOL) that's not practical, not even in theoretical models.

This goes into the negative measurements, but that's still back to simple convenience... who are we to say 'ok you're the negative at this value'.. we're just assigning cosmic tags to particles like wild animals being tracked by GPS

I liked the conclusion where this is being challenged... it should be

I didn't really address the idea of 'force, but in my mind force is just like clear plastic balloon filled with glitter... you squeeze one end it goes to the other.... we're trying to figure out what is doing the squeezing and why does the glitter move like it does when we squeeze it... you tilt the ice tray one way and the water drains to one end....

it's all space time.... it's all sand on the beach.... and the cosmos is arranged in many many sand castles... examine the sand on any scale that you want... it's still sand.

my point is that the perceived notion of the 'negative' is not a negative at all... it's just the underside of the same snake.... looks different... acts different... feels different... but made of the same just in a different manner.

but if it makes them happy.. it's a different value than their 'zero'

wow... I liked this article

Jon, an idea hit me last night.  Would you consider a Black Hole to be 'something' naturally working towards a perfect state of 'something'?  Can 'something' exist in a perfect and stable state?  Once a supermassive black hole becomes stable is it approaching a state of 'nothing'?

I know on the scale of cosmic time they talk about the far ahead dark ages in the distant epochs of time where only black holes exist and eventually evaporate.

I instinctively feel as if the supermassive is teetering towards a relationship with a true nothing.  Could something go to a point where it falls over cyclical into nothing?


(Jon)     That's a very good idea!  Entropy is the perfect state of no energy, no space movement.  Eternally quiescent.  That is a form of perfection the Universe cannot tolerate.  The Big Bang is also a perfect state, that of ultimate chaos.  We are time beings dwelling in a state between those two opposite and perfect events.

On the one hand we have Super-Novas and on the other we have super massive black holes.  Some astronomers think Novas are exploding black holes.

Since the very constituents of matter are spinning space-time vortices around inert space, it stands to reason that Black Holes are precisely that:  "black holes" of space. The core of a black hole is inert, cold, unmoving space surrounded by a spinning resonant sheath boundary of space-time.  Atomic particles accelerate to the speed of light around the accretion disk.  Since the particles are also spinning at the speed of light, the boundary sheath becomes transparent and the void inside the particle is absorbed into the central void.  This is how black holes grow.

Black holes do not swallow stars in one gulp, they must be unwound.  Stars are matter and matter is spun up space-time.  Voids attract and absorb other voids. Whirling space separates from void space at the speed of light, since there is no resistance in a vacuum.  Any movement of space is at the speed of light.  Also any movement of space affects all other space.

Now here is a real brain teaser... It is the contraction of space into matter that causes the inflation of space!

Think about that one for a while and you will have a brain orgasm.

As space-time spins up into matter it creates a vacuum of space which is an expansion in space.

As far as we know, there is no limit to the expansion of space, which also means there is no limit to how much matter can be created. Astronomers do not know if there is an upper limit to the size of a black hole, but we know that there is an upper limit to the size of matter.

If a star grows too massive it explodes and becomes either a neutron star or a black hole.  But how can a black hole explode?  Since the Black Hole is composed of void, cold, unmoving space and devoid of internal energy (energy comes from without and manifests as a spinning space-time sheath,) how can it explode?

The answer is that it does not explode, but as the hole grows larger the spinning resonant boundary sheath becomes unstable and separates into bands that start at the poles and work inward squeezing the void out of the poles in intense radiation beams.  Space is squeezed, twisted, and set in motion by the unstable sheath and focused into space-time beams (gamma rays) radiated back into space at the speed of light. These are beams of space-time that cause the movement of space, and hence creation.  So we see that the Black Hole is indeed a creator.  Like colossal spinning wheels, Black Holes create Space-Time, and are themselves made of the interaction of space with space-time.

The Hole shrinks as it radiates and eventually the sheath becomes resonant and stable again, radiating only as much as it receives.  So a black hole will never die, it just adjusts its size to more stable configurations.  That is perfection in a way, is it not?   Black Holes could qualify as Deities, since they live forever and they create "something out of nothing."  But they are Sub-deities because they also constitute a structure.  The Large Scale Structure of the Universe looks like a brain from the molecular viewpoint.

As for the last question, something can never become nothing.  Boiled down, "something" is ultimately defined as movement of space, and once space moves, it moves forever at the speed of light.  The Universe cannot sit still and do nothing.  Even at absolute zero temperature there is motion of molecules, called "Zitterbewegung" or "Brownian motion". 

Quantum fluctuations assure that there will never exist a perfect state of entropy.  Should the Universe ever grind down to perfect entropy, it would spring back into negentropy at the next quantum fluxuation.  The lack of perfection is what drives primordial genesis.  A difference in density of space anywhere in space causes all of space to react to neutralize the difference, at the speed of light.  But once in motion, space can never stop.  What can stop moving space?


(GentleYami)     That makes perfect sense.  Just like you said.  Space-time is one entity to itself... it seems very fluidic to me.... connected and as one action takes place you have equal and opposite things happening in the other part.... like soap bubbles or like watching a lava lamp.  You still have X amount in the end that you began with. it's just being manipulated in a different manner.  And that 'brane' is interconnected... like a cosmic bed sheet or something.

Hmmm it is mindblowing really.  it's very difficult to wrap words around it huh?

So something cannot become nothing

I thought Hawking proved black holes evaporate?

I agree with what you said.... for something to become nothing is 'something-centric' thinking.  Something is an imperfect nothing only and first.  So N=S, not S=N

that makes sense too

that space time boundary (sheath) keeps popping up on me when I go down to the micro or go up to the macro... I keep bouncing off of it.

So it exists at the smallest part of reality and in it's gigantic too... wow.

It seems the way something or space time is saving itself is by speeding up as fast as the laws of the universe will allow it to.  and if you take away something's speed and it stops then you go back to 'entropy' which blows everything up again because you cannot create a stable nothing...only an imperfect nothing.  The explosion gives something (space time) back the speed it requires to hold existence.


Jon - The Lava Lamp example is excellent.  You will notice over a period of time the large bubbles in the lamp break up and become smaller, and they seldom reunite, so eventually you have a bunch of smaller bubbles.

That is similar to what actually happens in space, the boundary sheath acts to keep the contents inside and foreign materials outside.  Even when Black Holes get near each other, they do not merge, but begin to waltz around one another, sometimes at unbelievable speed.

I do not know if black holes ever merge, but they are probably like neutrons in the nucleus, they do not orbit each other.  Being neutral, the neutron slides right through the proton and swaps a  quark, the proton becomes a neutron and the neutron becomes a proton.  The nucleus is in constant turmoil of identity crisis as protons and neutrons morph into one another.

I don't understand the strong force that keeps protons nestled close to each other, but the same thing happens in the center of the galaxy, where a central super massive black hole resides, and a swarm of over 6000 smaller black holes also hang out.  It seems the black holes migrate to the center and hang out with their brethren, like protons.

As far as Hawkings prediction that black holes evaporate, Hawking radiation only works to a certain size, then it becomes stable, like electrons that last forever.  It may be that electrons are decayed black holes.  What happened during the inflationary period and the dark age of the early universe?  Perhaps all there was were Hawkings radiating black holes, which decayed into present day electrons.  We can only dream about these stellar to quantum phenomena because all evidence is hidden.

The resonant boundary sheath has modes of resonance depending on physical size and space density, some modes are extremely stable and some are not.  That is why there are quantum steps.  Certain energy levels are conducive to stable orbits.  We even see this in satellites, where certain zones promote stable orbits (L5 for example).

You said "you cannot create a stable nothing... only an imperfect nothing."  Yes, it turns out that "perfect nothing" is not stable.  In my quest for perfection I found that perfection is not stable either!  It is the lack of stability that is the creative force, not perfection.  We live in an asymmetric universe that is inherently unstable and unsustainable.

This force of instability pushes creation of anything and everything, some of the creation actually finds niches of stability, like life on earth.  But only nothing lasts forever.

(GentleYami)     Did you see the recent science channel show "Master of the Universe?" about Stephen Hawking and M Theory?  Hawking has put forth a 'proposal' that the universe is infinite but that it did have a beginning out of nothing.

They say this towards the end of the show.  Hawking is saying that existence is a like a bubble.

On the same show is Lisa Randall, I think from Harvard and she's saying that gravity is weak because of extra dimensions, she describes her extra dimensions as doughnuts at every point in space time

Michio from NY University goes on about the fish tank theory of how we are floating in a 3d tank unaware of extra dimensions

I'd say they're getting closer to the truth brother.  Just a few fundamental thought shifts and they'd be there.  They are still guilty of 'something centric' thinking... existence is the lower state.. not the higher one... a perfect nothing is the higher state.... but that isn't possible... so something cleverly loops around on itself infinitely

These lessons can just be observed by anyone in nature... I think along the way man has lost sight of something he must have figured out very long ago

Something they proposed didn't sit well with me... your thought on this please... they are saying the big bang was a collision between 2 branes.... that just doesn't click the gears for me.... that's not right... how can you have a moment of super symmetry with the super force amongst a collision?

I need my guiding light Jon Blackmon to help me with this. (and his companion Dudley)


"I'd say they're getting closer to the truth brother.  Just a few fundamental thought shifts and they'd be there.  They are still guilty of 'something centric' thinking....existence is the lower state..not the higher one...a perfect nothing is the higher state....but that isn't possible....so something cleverly loops around on itself infinitely."

(Jon)     I wish to include this paragraph in the book, maybe with expansions of key concepts.  Essentially that is the idea, "something cleverly loops around on itself infinitely."

Hawking says "Existence is like a bubble."   I say existence is like a bubble within a bubble within a bubble...

About the colliding branes...

It's all about that infinite energy thing at the big bang.  How can you account for it?  The proposition is that you can not create or destroy energy.  That all the energy in the Universe has been here all along, and will be here forever more.  So where does the initial energy come from?

M theory says it came from a collision of branes, when energy was created by mysterious inter-dimensional forces of which we are unaware, that permanently distorted space into the seething space-time we are today.

My answer is that space time is all there really is, and that energy comes from space-time attempting to equalize.  Since absolute equalization is impossible, there will always be movement of space-time.  And since all of (infinite) space is connected through the occurrence of time, there is an infinite amount of energy at that occurrence.

Therefore we can explain where the energy came from, it came from space itself through the occurrence of time in its relentless and futile pursuit of perfect nothing.

We do not require multiple and separate dimensions for explanation, although we do not rule them out.  Space-time can assume any direction and dimensionality that is possible.  These added dimensions simply add fuel to the fire, as each dimension contains another infinity!  That's why it is so appealing to use the collision of separated infinities to inject the needed energy.

We say the initial energy is already accounted for in the time dimension.  Adding another infinity to infinity still equals infinity.  Subtracting infinity from infinity always leaves the difference, which is something.  That's something to think about!

(GentleYami)     I couldn't agree more

I'm sitting speaking out loud as I read saying "Right.... Right...RIGHT!!!!" over and over

so Dudley and I agree with you

(Jon)     One of the most misunderstood basics of science is time.  The old saying "Time flies when you're having fun" is truer than we think.  Time is variable and in quantum packages.

Quantum Chronotopology article exposes basic errors in the old concepts of time and introduces a new theory that solves the paradoxes of quantum mechanics.  You don't need to follow the mathematics, just read the prose that describes the mathematics.  Maybe  read it backwards (the conclusion first).  At any rate, you will find great enlightenment in these pages.


(Gentleyami)  I'm trying to understand the density decreasing part of his article

The quantum article was awesome though... I don' understand what happens when you change something just by measuring it.

ok after re reading and re reading I finally get the low density.

I'm going back to what I said before that it's approaching a point of perfect something

It seems that at some point gravity erases Lisa Randall's life's work and carries on with its happy self smashing even dimensional barriers and allowing raw gravity to work

Hmmm maybe not a perfect state but instead a 'super' state.  after reading that I'm really struck at the raw nature of the force at work

It's like gravity is finally free on some nature 'gravity' preserve to roam free and live without the weight of other dimensions impeding it's power

The Planck length is fascinating... and all this time I had been confusing the event horizon for the actual object.. I did not know that (you win your bet sir)

Jon what's going on in the quantum with this super something?  How can something so small rule from it's tiny throne?  These things are the anchor points of existence... kind of like thumb tacks in a poster pinning it to the wall.

Oh, which brings me to the Higgs field... what do you know about that?  The magic mass field.  I get the feeling that the higgs field is just a frothy foamy mocha cappuccino imperfect nothing.  I know their looking for more info on this field at the LHC.


(Jon)     All you have, have ever had, or ever will have is space-time, and the energy to do something with it.

Ah yes, the Higgs field...

As if anyone knows anything about the Higgs field.  It is a component in string theory equations, along with 11 dimensions, needed to describe mass.

I see it as a measure of connectedness of space-time.

We know that, starting with nothing but space, a Universe will create itself from the inequalities of space if given enough time.  Matter is made of multiply connected space-time.

Space is free to flow in all directions and all dimensions at once.  A field is a flow of space-time, which is energy.  The Higgs field is a mathematical value used to express resistance to movement depending on density of mass, on the large scale this relates to gravity.  We see how gravity connects us to the celestial plane, the Higgs field connects quantum particles to our plane.

We are the middle kingdom, the connection between the mighty and the minuscule.  A phenomenal place in space-time!

(GentleYami)     I really like your quote Jon.  I can't wait to buy a copy of the book. (or copies!!)

I've learned so much from you.  Thank you.


(Jon)     Here is an important article about quantum communication.  This technology can be used with most modern computers that use spread spectrum clocks.  Look at the year this experiment was conducted.  Six years later and still no one is talking about it.  Why?  Because the military has been using this for over twenty years.  It is the basis of cryptotechnology today, sometimes called quantum teleportation.

It turns out that computers running the same short program will sync the phase of their spread spectrum clocks, no matter where the computers are located.  Utilizing this effect, information can be transferred that is unique to those synced computers, and not even available to other computers not synced.

This is the future of civilian communications... it is in current military use.


(GentleYami)     I was reading up on particle physics on wikipedia (please forgive me) because I am as always a humble government accountant, and found this statement which I think puts you in good company since you share this sentiment sir:

Albert Einstein believed that randomness is a reflection of our ignorance of some fundamental property of reality

Is vacuum resonance a function of space time?

The vacuum they're referring to is a gap of particles in space time right?  Or are they going outside of space time?

This would create instant communication right?  isn't this similar to sub space on star trek?

well I guess not though... sub space has it's limits... this would be more like star trek's warp 10... everywhere at once

if 'something' is a 'nothing' bubble or space time wrapped around a vacuum of nothing, then is the vacuum a function of nothing?


(Jon)     We were discussing the probability of the macrocosms affecting the microcosms by impressing extra dimensions from above to below.  The impressions would take the form of harmonics of the fundamental frequency and be related to the frequency of the proton.

Here we found a related article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080131161812.htm

This part is most intriguing

"Kaluza-Klein (KK) gravitons can distinguish between different proposed extra-dimensional geometries.

Shiu compares the effect to a darkened room in which patterns of sound resonating off the walls can reveal the shape of the room. Similarly, KK gravitons are sensitive to the extra-dimensional shape and, through their behavior and decay, may reveal clues to that shape."

What shape do you expect they may find?


(GentleYami)   I agree with Lisa Randall on this one...a doughnut.


(Jon)     The torus is a good guess, but that is a three dimensional object, and we need more dimensions at this plane.  My guess is to revert to known paradigms, like "As above, so below."  I think each point in this universe is a reflection of the entire universe.

So the torus is the basic structure in three dimensions, but is composed of a substructure made of the smaller dimensions, sort of like this graphic of the large scale structure.  Notice it is the body of the torus that is made of space.  The interior of the torus is made of space-time, with it's tiny curled up dimensions, each point in the universe is a reflection of the entire universe


(GentleYami)     wow that has a sharp ring of real truth to it

that actually would explain a lot of phenomena


(Jon)     Ever thought about holes?

Semiconductor electronics theory includes the concept of "holes".  These are spaces where electrons should be or have been.  They act like positively charged electrons, but also have unique properties that electrons don't.  They are disturbed areas of electrically charged space time that spin and flow opposite to their electron counterparts.  Here is an article about tiny wires that force the holes to line up and flow single file.

This is a science based on manipulating "nothing".  More fascinating fodder for my book, "Understanding Nothing".   It is so far out it makes me think it is fiction, but it's not!  Imagine a computer based on the spins of holes, someone else already has.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060726091431.htm


(GentleYami)     a hands on practical application of using 'nothing' in everyday life? wow
 
looks like the world is just about ready for your book Jon... I want to see you on Jon Stewart or Colbert Report promoting it!

aren't positrons something like these holes?


(Jon)     Yes and No.  Positrons are somewhat like "holes" in that they are both positively charged and have magnetic fields, but holes contain no matter.  Positrons contain no matter also, because they are anti-matter.  That is not the only difference, the magnetic field of a positron is not like the magnetic field of a hole.  The hole's magnetic field lines up with the direction of travel, whereas the positrons magnetic field is perpendicular to the direction of travel.  Also the positron has mass whereas the hole does not.

A hole is where an electron should be, as determined by the crystal lattice structure, so it is the lack of an electron.  Taking away an electron makes the atom positively charged instead of neutral.  That's the source of the hole's charge, the atomic nucleus.  A positron is anti-matter, so it cannot take the place of a hole because it is positively charged and would be repelled by the nucleus.

A hole cannot exist outside the crystal latticework, but a positron can.   Positrons have their own independent existence in space-time, a hole depends on atomic structure and is the result of removing an electron from where it should have been.

If a positron and an electron meet, they annihilate one another in a fantastic explosion that emits gamma rays.  When an electron finds a hole it drops into the hole, merging quietly and peacefully, with no radiation.

Holes are easy to make, just apply voltage across a crystal and electrons pop out all over the crystal, leaving holes.  Making positrons is a whole different story, requiring atom smashers of immense proportion.  And when a positron is made it immediately annihilates with the closest piece of matter, giving off characteristic gamma radiation announcing it's destruction.

You know, of course, that you are helping me write this book, and hopefully you will be there on stage with Stewart or Colbert and I to receive the roasting.  Are you prepared to be associated with the quest for nothing?  I can assure you this, the world is not ready for the truth.

You and I are an extremely rare breed, thinking and reasoning for ourselves, questioning even the obvious.  There are people out there that would kill us for our thoughts.


(GentleYami)       you're so right Jon

I've written to all the big names in the business like Michio and Neil Degrasse Tyson and no response whatsoever... they must just consider it foolhardy

but it really is the truth....


(Jon)     Quantum Repulsion article in Scientific American

"Of all the puzzling physical effects predicted and explained by quantum mechanics, one of the most counterintuitive is that fluctuations in a vacuum can exert forces on objects—almost as if those objects are getting something from nothing. Even in empty space, there are flutterings of energy, and sometimes those tiny ripples act in demonstrable ways. One example is known as the Casimir effect, predicted to exist in 1948 by the late Dutch physicist Hendrik Casimir, in which quantum fluctuations create an attractive force between two surfaces in a vacuum..."

(GentleYami)       that article is incredible!!

they actually say 'something from nothing' in that article.... I think the world is inching closer to the truth

(Jon)     Fun facts about me

Back in 1985 I worked in your area on the biggest computers in the country.  I worked on the monster computer system at Environmental Protection Agency, which takes up an entire two story building the size of a city block.

I also worked on the main computer complex at the University of NC and NC State, as well as the big banks and pharmaceutical computers in the Golden Triangle.   But I didn't care for the East Coast, being a full blooded Texan, so I went back to Dallas and worked on Star Wars projects at Scientific Communications. I worked with a team of engineers in the research and develoment lab to develop one of the worlds first advanced computer controlled communications intercept system. It used pulse analyzers, signal recognizers, and a unique active antenna that had both Omni and Directional characteristics.

I don't know if I told you before or not, but my dog Dudley died last month and I've been in mourning since.  A friend of mine gave me a Chihuahua/Dachshund mix so I have something to love.  I call my new friend Nano.

I am also a musician, play the keyboard.  One of my last projects was a digital wireless guitar.  I designed the audio codec board and used a wireless module from Germany.  I'll send you a video of my guitarist friend playing his guitar through the digital wireless system.  The sustain he gets out of the system is amazing. I've worked with a lot of wireless systems, but this one is the best I could do... and it's just incredible!






The truth is:  Everything is made of Nothing.
We are Plasma Time creatures living in a condensed energy (matter) environment.   Composed of intense swirling space-time, we are separate from other space-time, but made up of it. 

Time is a unique dimension which connects all of space.  Any point in time is not the same everywhere at once.  It is this attribute of time that causes quantum weirdness; action at a distance,  faster than light speed, and entanglement.

Col. Tom Bearden asks:
What is "reality"?  Our search for a BETTER model...

One must first understand that we never perceive or observe "reality", and we therefore can have no direct knowledge of what reality is. As Hawking puts it:
   "All we ever know is our models, but never the reality that may or may not exist behind the models and casts its shadow upon us who are embedded inside it. We imagine and intuit, then point the finger and wait to see which suspect for truth turns and runs. Our models may get closer and closer, but we will never reach direct perception of reality's thing-in-itself." [As given by George Zebrowski, "The holdouts," Nature, Vol. 408, 14 Dec 2000, p. 775,]
Indeed, Penrose wrote an entire book on the physicist's search for reality itself. It is Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality, Alford A. Knopf, 2006. In it, Penrose also uses another revealing quote from Hawking. Quoting:
   "I don't demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don't know what it is. Reality is not a quality you can test with litmus paper. All I'm concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements." [Stephen Hawking, as quoted in Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality, Alford A. Knopf, 2006, p. 785].
For many years, Hawking sought the "ultimate model" and believed that such exists (although the very notion was falsified by Gödel in 1931). Eventually Hawking realized that no such model would be forthcoming, but also realized it meant that physics would never end; there would always be new and exciting things to discover and understand. Quoting:
   "Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I am now glad our search for understanding will never come to an end, and we will always have the challenge of new discovery." [Stephen Hawking, posted on his website in early 2004].
  One of the major keys to our search for a BETTER model, hopefully unified, is in the very nature of a model itself. As is well-known to GOOD physicists (but to hardly any electrical engineers!), the choice of fundamental units in one's model is totally arbitrary. E.g., there are perfectly valid physics models that use only a single fundamental unit. Suppose we take the "joule" (energy) to be the fundamental unit. Then everything else is just a function of energy – and that includes space, time, length, mass, etc. Even the great classical electrodynamicist Jackson took a beating for pointing out that fact. Quoting Jackson:
   "The desirable features of a system of units in any field are convenience and clarity. For example, theoretical physicists active in relativistic quantum field theory and the theory of elementary particles find it convenient to choose the universal constants such as Planck's quantum of action and the velocity of light in vacuum to be dimensionless and of unit magnitude.
The resulting system of units (called 'natural' units) has only one basic unit, customarily chosen to be length. All quantities, whether length or time or force or energy, etc., are expressed in terms of this one unit and have dimensions which are powers of its dimension. There is nothing contrived or less fundamental about such a system than one involving the meter, the kilogram, and the second as basic units. It is merely a matter of convenience." [J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd Edn., John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1975, p. 811-812].
Ultimately, then, everything – space, time, spacetime, vacuum, mass, force, momentum, virtual, observable, etc. – is just a function of energy.
Since the fundamental unit of a model is arbitrary, then suppose we choose that "function of energy" (in the usual decrepit sense) that we think of as spacetime, as the fundamental unit. Then everything in our physics model must be a function of spacetime.
However, immediately the fundamental problem is this: Presently there is really no definition of "energy" as Nobelist Feynman pointed out in his three volumes of physics in 1964. Quoting:
   "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is." [Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 4-2].
  Feynman confronted the fact that a "precursor force-free field" in space must interact with mass to produce a force. So – in answer to his own search for a definition of force – we may take the definition of force to be "the ongoing interaction of the precursor force-free field in spacetime with mass". For some odd reason, Feynman never finished that conclusion from his own work, which already showed it! Quoting Feynman, of EM force field and the hopelessness of defining force itself:
   "…the existence of the positive charge, in some sense, distorts, or creates a "condition" in space, so that when we put the negative charge in, it feels a force. This potentiality for producing a force is called an electric field." [Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 2-4].
   "We may think of E(x, y, z, t) and B(x, y, z, t) as giving the forces that would be experienced at the time t by a charge located at (x, y, z), with the condition that placing the charge there did not disturb the positions or motion of all the other charges responsible for the fields." [ibid, vol. II, p. 1-3.]
   "One of the most important characteristics of force is that it has a material origin, and this is not just a definition. … If you insist upon a precise definition of force, you will never get it!"   [Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 12-2].

Boogie, another best friend forever, may he rest in peace.

Top Quark Feynman Diagram
Earth's Electromagnetic Field

Water Molecules are the key to future fuel needs.
Plasma Angel dancing on the suface of the Sun.
Monocerotis looks like a clam opening to display a treasure of shining pearls
Prototype of Digital Interface Guitar System under test.
But thanks to the clues that Feynman himself provided, I believe we have a reasonable solution to the problem of defining a force after all.
The short solution to begin unifying our models of nature is this: Spacetime, the virtual state vacuum, and energy are identically all one and the same thing.
Note very carefully what we are saying. Energy is not something "separate" that is "in" or "traveling through" spacetime like a separate boat in the water. It identically is spacetime itself. And energy is not something "separate" that is "in" or "traveling through" the virtual state vacuum like a boat in the water. It identically is the virtual state vacuum itself.
But the general relativist and the particle physicist will both be aghast at the audacity of defining energy ≡ spacetime ≡ vacuum (virtual).
The "magnitude" of an energy change is the magnitude of a fundamental change in spacetime/vacuum itself.
"Energy dynamics" (of any kind) is just the magnitude (and kind) of that spacetime/vacuum change and its rate of change(s).
Energy is not SOMETHING IN OR TRAVELING THROUGH spacetime/ vacuum. It is identically ANYTHING COMPRISED OF spacetime/vacuum, since spacetime/vacuum is identically "energy". It is a spacetime dynamic moving through spacetime, or a vacuum dynamic moving through the vacuum.
All of physics presently regards energy as "something different from" spacetime, and that is "in" the "separate background spacetime". That is flatly wrong.
Thus all primary energy is virtual, not observable – because spacetime itself is not observable, and neither is the vacuum. A change in the energy remains virtual, unless the change is of sufficient size to constitute a quantum. THEN it's observable because it will individually interact with observable matter to move it or change it, sufficiently for instruments to show it.
So the quanta are special "boats" IN and OF spacetime/vacuum, but are also comprised of a sufficiently large change in spacetime/vacuum.
A quantum can also be comprised of integrated coherent subquanta (virtual changes). This is actually demonstrated inescapably by the source charge problem.Mass-energy now becomes a very dense localized change of spacetime/vacuum.
Any change in spacetime is automatically a change in the virtual state vacuum, and vice versa.  We do not regard vacuum as something "occupying" spacetime, but identically as spacetime itself.
Right away, the various theories of the vacuum, zero-point energy, etc. are thoroughly fouled, as are indeed the present attempts at defining a "potential", a "field", etc.
For our purposes, we shall consider a "potential" as "potential energy" that is there and "collected" and can be used.
That means that spacetime/vacuum is simply the set of all potentials, or may be so regarded. In a sense, the vacuum is the "master potential" comprised of all other potentials simultaneously.
Since the fields are functions of the potentials, then all individual fields are functions (partial functions) of the master vacuum potential (set of all potentials).
The property of the quantum is that a single quantum change (in potential or field) acts upon observable mass in individually observable fashion (effect).
The property of the subquantum (virtual) entity acting upon observable mass is not individually observable. Yet virtual (subquantal) entities acting coherently in sufficient ensemble upon a single observable mass can coherently integrate in the "excitation" (change) of that observable mass to constitute an observable (quantum) change. Hence we still preserve the quantum field theory notion that all OBSERVABLE forces are due to the "exchange" (actually, to the interaction) of virtual particles with observable matter.
Hence this also retains the solution to the source charge problem, which does not exist in ordinary physics. Ordinary physics still assumes that an observable electron or other charged particle – which continually radiates real quanta (real photons) in all directions, continually establishing and continually replenishing the associated "static" fields) – simply steadily creates (from nothing at all) that real, observable EM energy flow (those real photons emitted in all directions at light speed).
But this approach will also allow precursor engineering, so that at last we can understand exactly what Soviet/KGB "energetics" is and was all about.
Precursor engineering is also possible directly, using – for example – the Fogal chip. Run at idling speed (about 50% load), the chip slowly settles down from "pushing electrons" to directly altering and affecting spacetime/vacuum (pure energy) itself.
In everything – e.g., quantum mechanics – there presently are multiple models, each for only a "part" of the phenomenology as determined by experiment.  Usually one just applies a single one of those models.
But in precursor engineering, one must keep ALL the models (in all of physics) in one's mind, because BY ENGINEERING SPACETIME/VACUUM/ENERGY ITSELF, DIRECTLY, one is actually engineering reality itself, in the NONOBSERVABLE form (i.e., it's also vacuum engineering, spacetime engineering, virtual state engineering, and precursor engineering – all are one and the same thing.).
Anyway, now we can state that ALL ENERGY IS OBVIOUSLY ENERGY FROM THE VACUUM, BECAUSE THE VACUUM/SPACETIME IS IDENTICALLY ENERGY.
And electrical power engineering is a hoary old "bust" of a model, because it still assumes force fields, and still uses the false notion that energy is something separate that "IS IN" spacetime/vacuum, but is not OF spacetime/ vacuum.
Hence the struggling area of "energy from the vacuum/spacetime" involves precursor engineering, direct engineering of spacetime itself, and direct engineering of the virtual state vacuum itself.
This at least gives us the gist of what is needed to understand (and once funded, to hire some very sharp specialists to begin the modeling) "energy from the vacuum".
Eerily, to get rid of negative energy, the physicists actually put forward the notion that mass-energy violates simple arithmetic! That is, since the "vacuum" or "space" is or has zero mass (and thus zero mass-energy), the thesis used by the physicists is that mass-energy can only be positive! So if one reaches into the zero-level vacuum (thinking of it as a Dirac sea) and pulls out an electron leaving a hole, then the fact is that "hole" now has "less than zero" mass-energy (because of the removal of positive mass-energy).
So the hole – which is really a negative mass-energy electron!) must be called a positive mass-energy positron! In short, the simple arithmetic equation that (0 - 1 = - 1) is not permitted! Instead, the physicists are using and applying the equation (0 - 1 = + 1), which – at least to me – is a real non-sequitur, no matter how one tries to rationalize it.
That's the weirdest thing I ever saw in physics, and when I went through nuclear engineering at Georgia Tech, I immediately disagreed with that practice, and of calling a Dirac hole a positron! But of course, like any other student I kept it to myself and "played the game" that was being taught, so I would obtain my degree.
Dirac actually reasoned that the hole itself was not observable, and we would only "see" or "observe" the disappearance of the hole when it was filled and changed back to a zero. That, he reasoned, was a net change in electron mass-energy (from the minus one condition of the hole) of a plus one, and with respect to charge it was a change of one positive electron charge. But if one does not violate arithmetic, then the "hole" is actually a negative mass-energy electron (the so-called "dark matter" our astrophysicists are so avidly seeking) and its fields are negative energy EM fields (the so-called "dark energy" our astrophysicists are so avidly seeking).
Bedini, of course, has been using negative energy (dark energy) and holes (dark matter) in his battery charging circuits for about two decades.
But since Dirac's reasoning was set forth, that violation of arithmetic has mostly buried negative EM energy! E.g., to see how this line of reasoning works in the minds of our physicists, we quote Roger Penrose:
   "Although it is true that, in a sense, an antiproton is a negative proton, it is not really 'minus one proton'. The reason is that the sign reversal refers only to additive quantum numbers, whereas the notion of mass is not additive in modern physical theory. 
'Minus one proton' would have to be an antiproton whose mass is the negative of the mass value of an ordinary proton. But the mass of an actual physical particle is not allowed to be negative. An antiproton has the same mass as an ordinary proton, which is a positive mass."  "… according to the ideas of quantum field theory, there are things called 'virtual' particles for which the mass (or, more correctly, energy) can be negative.
'Minus one proton' would really be a virtual antiproton. But a virtual particle does not have an independent existence as an 'actual particle'."   [Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2006, p. 67].
Today a few (a VERY few!) young scientists are trying to refute that "bad assumption" and remove this violation of simple arithmetic! E.g., quoting Solomon:
   "In Dirac's hole theory (HT), the vacuum state is generally believed to be the state of minimum energy. …this is not, in fact, the case and states [exist in HT] with less energy than the vacuum state. …energy can be extracted from the HT [hole theory] vacuum state through application of an electric field." [Dan Solomon, "Some new results concerning the vacuum in Dirac's hole theory," Physica Scripta, Vol. 74, 2006, p. 117-122].
This of course restores "negative energy" back to academic physics – which is nice since several nations of the world have already highly developed and weaponized the use of negative energy, particularly in negative energy EMP (electromagnetic pulse) weapons.
The Sweet vacuum triode amplifier (an extract from Kron's true "negative resistor" developed at Stanford University in the 1930s) output negative energy, with very high gain (COP = 1,500,000). By simply adding more load (more impedance), with negative energy the vacuum will then freely insert additional negative energy in that extra impedance, giving an "amplifying gain" in the negative energy outflow from the device.
This was sufficient to demonstrate controlled antigravity, by Sweet's switching the extra load connected, in 100-watt increments. As a result, the unit smoothly lost 90% of its weight right there on the bench.
  The actual measured results of that experiment are published in Floyd Sweet and T. E. Bearden, "Utilizing Scalar Electromagnetics to Tap Vacuum Energy," Proceedings of the 26th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference (IECEC '91), Boston, Massachusetts, 1991, p. 370-375. Sweet's device normally produced 500 watts for a 330 microwatt input.
Unfortunately Sweet later died and never fully revealed the full activation secret by which his barium ferrite magnetic materials could be in stable self-oscillation in their nuclear binding energy at 60 Hertz.

Tom Bearden