The NOE Hypothesis and the Unification of General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and Consciousness by Madonna-Megara Holloway, Mark Garstin, and Gary Hildebrand

[deleted]

Madonna-Megara

Interesting thoughts. Thank you for the Essay

[deleted]

Thank you for your comments. Certainly a first read presents interesting thoughts but to really understand the ramifications of what is written one would need to set aside many hours and trace through all of the references and End Notes. Scientists will find the key to resolving unification of the various disparate theories when String Theory is superseded by the Spirilla Hypothesis and all that is entailed.

[deleted]

Thank you for your comments. The concepts in this essay have been over 30 years in the making. The essay itself several hundred man hours but it was important to get it right.

[deleted]

Thank you for your comments. The inclusion of consciousness greater than human is a subject that is hard to address in a science paper.

[deleted]

Have you ever read the book Dimiter by WP Blatty? There are some aspects of his book that remind me of the things that you've addressed in your work over the past few decades. His book is a good read, in any case.

May I ask about which specific "physical assumption" that this essay aims to question/refute? The essay's conclusion (and some of these comments here) are not very clear to me, and I was hoping that you could explain what paradigm shift is meant to occur (other than "strings are to be superseded by spirilla")? My initial guess is that the essay is meant to counter the notion held by some that "a dead rock is a dead rock, and nothing more". Is this a close guess?

[deleted]

(Regardless of your aim, my intention is not to question it. I just want to clarify it)

[deleted]

The short answer is YES the long answer follows:

Questioning the Foundations: Which of Our Basic Physical assumptions are Wrong?

The assumption of the 3 dimensional nature of atoms. The essay redefines the hydrogen atom as 4 dimensional, on 7 planes, has a dinucleon (with the second nucleon being the Etheric double), and that hydrogen bonding is neutral electricity.

What exactly are the basic physical and mathematical postulates in our "fundamental" physical theories or candidate theories?

1. The postulates stated in Section 2 are added

2. The veracity of the Big Bang is challenged

3. String Theory is superseded by the Spirilla Hypothesis

4. The structure of the sun

5. The formation of planets

6. In the End Notes that gluons and bosons are imaginary particles; E=mc2 is only valid for the reflection of light as it counter rotates to the E2 plane rotation; and the Periodic Table of Elements needs to be pivoted

7. more

Foundational: This Contest is limited to works addressing, in one of its many facets, our understanding of the deep or "ultimate" nature of reality.

The entire essay is foundational and as I quoted above in another question: When we have attained to this conception of hylozoism of a living material universe, the mystery of nature will be solved.

[deleted]

Ok, right on. Thank you for the clarification! I can tell that you spent a lot of time working on the model. I can tell that you've spent a lot of time and effort on putting this together, and you're definitely not trying to "beat people over the head" with the premise, so I gave you a fairly high rating.

[deleted]

When starting to write this essay we noted that the requirement was - Accessible to a diverse, well-educated but non-specialist audience, aiming in the range between the level of Scientific American and a review article in Science or Nature. To understand the target audience I went to a news stand to review the content. The standard for Scientific American was well known to me but not Science or Nature. The problem then became writing to such a wide range of readers from the keenly interested to the academic or scientist. The only solution was to layer the essay like an onion;

1. for the keenly interested the use of diagrams and figures to illustrate; it was important that when they finished reading they could say - I get it;

2. for the advanced knowledge reader the use of detailed end notes plus a bibliography to help tie the pieces together so that it is technically correct to the degree of a published work or grant proposal.

There is enough content that a book or doctoral thesis could be written based on the outline.

[deleted]

Since, as you state, this is a unification of General Relativity and Quantum Physics (plus human conscious), and that you've spent over 30 years working on this, why have you waited so long to publish? I would have thought that you would have put out more into the academic media by now as your work has progressed. One may get the feeling that you've been holding onto (holding back on?) this for a while.

[deleted]

The original writings started with the Secret Doctrine in 1888 with the rest of the works following. Blavatsky, Bailey and Besant have been mostly ignored and in some cases laughed at. There is a searing commentary by Yale on Besant however in their defence there is an error in Besants work which was corrected by Bailey but not accounted for Yales statements. The three pieces of work must be viewed as a single effort.

I did publish the first paper in 2010 in the American Institute of Physics.

I have been at this for +3 decades, my husband Mark for nearly 2 decades and between the two of us we developed the NOE Hypothesis which also included a new clean form of energy-the methodology taken right out of a Treatise on Cosmic Fire. We have a pending application with the US DOE ARPA-E which has been pending since June 2011. The issue is no ACADEMIC sponsor.

We waited because;

1. Over one hundred and twenty years of rejection and scorn of those before us;

2. The promise of clean energy can not motivate a government or corporations to review the hypothesis;

3. No Academic sponsor to seriously look at the hypothesis;

4. We do not have the finances to attend conferences and/or pay to publish.

[deleted]

Thank you for your post. I am sorry for not responding sooner but the notice just came in yesterday. You have asked complex questions which have complex answers - too long for a post. I am currently writing an expanded version of the essay into a full paper - right now it is at 60 pages and even at this length it is missing much. I will post on Vixra and note the link in FQXi when done.

It should be noted that physicists are currently looking for the TOE however the problem that science has encountered is due to the fact that life and consciousness have been excluded in an attempt to unify the various theories. Science studies the effect and is searching for the cause leaving out the most fundamental parameter-life. The assumption being that life does not affect the observed phenomenon. Yet, the questions, What is Life? or What is Energy? or What is the process of Becoming and the nature of Being? remain unanswered.

The fuller description will unify Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity and Consciousness. The expanding universe, gravity, mass paradox, Higgs, bosons, gluons, SU(3), U(1) and SU(2) PLUS+++ have been addressed.

Sergey Fedosin

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

[deleted]

Thank you for your comment. It is a numbers game but I also noticed early in the contest that some people would systemically go to EVERY essay and rate them as 1 to decrease the scores while at the same time just one essay would get a 10. There is more than one way of distorting the numbers. As for the NOE Hypothesis I see the issue as more about not understanding the implications of what is written because to truly understand it you need to study ALL of the end notes and references and people are not making the time to do this. I am preparing a full paper which I will post on Vixra.

[deleted]

I have uploaded a more complete description of the NOE Hypothesis and the Unification of General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness to Vixra:

http://vixra.org/abs/1210.0046