———- Forwarded message ———-

From: **don mitchell** <don86326@gmail.com>

Date: Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 6:21 PM

Subject: More harping about Znidarsic

To: David Johnson <dj@argos.vu>, jhafner <jhafner@swcp.com>, Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com>, Neil Thompson <krackonis@gmail.com>, Edo Kaal <edwinkaal00@gmail.com>, Peter Alexander Venis <peter.a.venis@gmail.com>, Stephen Boelcskevy <ouchbox@gmail.com>

Also: Stephen Boelcskevy <ouchbox@gmail.com>, student of reality, pro-videographer, and EU 2017 attendee

Hello U’uns (hayseed for ‘you guys’),

An excerpt from DJ’s new site, becomingborealis.com:

FromDivine Cosmosby David Wilcock…

“There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant e – the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon. It is a simple number that has been experimentally determined to be close to 0.08542455. My physicist friends won’t recognize this number, because they like to remember it as the inverse of its square: about 137.03597 with an uncertainty of about two in the last decimal place. It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to pi or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows, it is one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say that the “hand of God” wrote that number, and “we don’t know how He pushed His pencil.” We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately,but we don’t know what kind of a dance to do on a computer to make this number come out– without putting it in secretly. [emphasis added]”

Reference on Znidarsic: A Tim Ventura interview (classic Znidarsic material): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JiiQ22YC7Y

Per Mr. Z’s explanation, Newton was wrong, on at least one trivial assumption, that a corpuscle of light is absorbed into the structure of an atom

**instantaneously**. Frank explains that Newton’s mathematical treatment of photon absorption was based on the understanding of the atomic model*du jour*, circa way back when. Newton, et al contemporaries, were not aware that the atom had internal structure let alone a nucleus.Newton’s groundwork mathematics on photon absorption is yet a part of the foundation of modern quantum physics, AND the modern model of atomic quantum transitions is yet based on instantaneous atomic transitions.

Therein is the source of Planck’s constant, which universally occurs in modern physics, everywhere, because the modern atomic mathematical model is yet wanting of a proper model, where instantaneity is impossible, philosophically and experimentally. Planck’s constant appears in nature universally so long as any scientist universally applies a broken atomic model. Modern is as modern does. Mainstream scientists, traditionally and to this day, remain enslaved to a citational hierarchy they call infallible. And as such, the citational hierarchy of modernistic science is beyond falsification, therein by definition of science becomes pseudo-science.

Differently, Planck’s constant, or the ‘fine-grain constant,’ is a modern kludge to balance a ‘classical’ equation based on an antique principle that atoms transition ween energy levels (photon absorption/emission).

**instantaneously**betMr. Z. is ignored by the mainstream, as he dares to claim he has found the cause of Planck’s mystery kludge, to remain citationally aligned with I. Newton. I could go on.

Comments?