To: David Johnson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Thanks, Jim, for forwarding my message to Juan, who was accidentally overlooked in my message.
Hi Juan and all,
Thanks, Juan, for the effort of your reply, but to me you seem to have missed the point I hope to discuss. I hope you were
able to watch the youtube video where Znidarsic explains himself.
* Reference: (42 min. Youtube interview) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JiiQ22YC7Y
* Papers by Znidarsic: http://portal.groupkos.com/index.php?title=Frank_Znidarsic#Papers
* Energy, Cold Fusion and Antigravity by Znidarsic: https://www.amazon.com/Energy-Cold-Fusion-Antigravity-2012-11-
Question: Do you believe that ‘a part’ of a ‘corpuscular’ electromagnetic ‘photon packet’ (of multiple frequencies of EM
radiation) does or does not absorb/emit instantaneously (among the photonic harmonics selected by an atom per level of
valence-change event), per Newton’s transaction model where an atom is considered an instantaneous whole, without
knowledge it even had a central nucleus?
It sounds to me as if you are defending the centuries old standard model of a (now termed) quantum transition (i.e.
valence change events against the positive Coulomb field ), while your thoughts expressed in your reply were gathering
non-related points of the discussion topic, as in a mini-discourse on EM qualities as you understand them, which is not
my point of discussion.
Allow me to clarify: Do you believe in instantaneous quantum transitions?
Also, from your mental place, can you believe that Newton could very well have been naturally ignorant of things not then
yet discovered when he set a mathematical premise based on ignorance of the atomic reality? Of course any of us can
answer that based on common sense. But I want you to think of the ramifications of the alleged classical ignorance,
And to be clear on my personal position, I do not believe that anything instantaneous happens in the Universe, as relates
to an event occurring that invokes change. ‘Change’ occurs over time, regardless of how rapidly or fleeting it seems from
a human surmise –per my reckoning. I reckon that science starts with common sense [Occam’s razor] minding a realm
1/19/2018 Gmail – Fwd: More harping about Znidarsic
of unquestioned axioms upheld by this group or that. Elsewise, arguments fomented by non-falsifiable pseudo-sense do
not compute for me.
I look forward to and thank you in advance for your on-point, thoughtful reply about instantaneity, and whether you reject
Znidarsic’s interpretation of the history of physics (straight out of the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica), and
whether mathematics (of Newton’s ignorance) can be upheld by professional devotion to the citational hierarchy (as if it is
infallible, and therein pseudo-science by definition), versus the axiomatic truth from any principle that change cannot
occur independently of the mediation of the progression of time.
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 8:21 AM, Juan Calsiano <email@example.com> wrote:
The physically existent plenum does not allow for “photons”, though. What the experiments show is that
electromagnetic radiation is physically emitted in discrete amounts of matter in motion quantified as hf (such
discreteness emerges from the harmonics of the resonant physical structure of the emitting units), thereafter light
spreads classically as continuous waves (as any capable RF Engineer intuitively knows), and such propagating
continuous wave systems can be ultimately absorbed also continuously by detecting units until a threshold discrete
level is reached and a resonant response / detection in the receptive unit is enacted (such threshold level is also
directly related to the complex standing-wave harmonics of the resonant physical structure of the detecting units).
Electromagnetic radiation exists only as continuous waves in a continuous medium, exactly as the founders of
In fewer words, once you adapt a conceptual framework based on strict Deterministic Coherence, the idea of a
“photon” is precluded. Moreover, Eric Reiter’s experiments seem to directly falsify the idea. See: http://unquantum.net/
On 18 January 2018 at 10:12, Jim Weninger <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Don, Did you share this with Juan already? I’m forwarding it just in case you didn’t.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 17, 2018, at 7:21 PM, don mitchell <email@example.com> wrote:
Also: Stephen Boelcskevy <firstname.lastname@example.org>, student of reality, pro-videographer, and EU 2017
Hello U’uns (hayseed for ‘you guys’),
An excerpt from DJ’s new site, becomingborealis.com:
( https://becomingborealis.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/The-Divine-Cosmos-.pdf#page=83 )
From Divine Cosmos by 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
1/19/2018 Gmail – Fwd: More harping about Znidarsic
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):
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
treatmentof 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
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 instantaneously between energy levels
Mr. 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.
Most of us already know that heat radiation and light are considered to be caused by the same thing – the passage of bursts of electromagnetic energy known as “photons.” However, before the year 1900, light and heat were not thought to move in discrete “photon” units, but rather in a smooth, flowing, unbroken fashion. Physicist Max Planck was the first to discover that light and heat would move in “pulses” or “packets” of energy at the tiniest level, calculated to be about 10^-32 centimeters. (An atomic nucleus is actually the size of a planet in comparison!)
Interestingly, if you have a faster oscillation, you get bigger packets, and if you have a smaller oscillation you get smaller packets. Planck discovered that this relationship between the speed of oscillation and the size of the packet will always remain constant, regardless of how you measure it. This constant relationship between oscillation speed and packet size is known as Wein’s Displacement Law. Rigorously, Planck discovered a single number that expressed this relationship, which is now known as “Planck’s Constant.”
A recent article by Caroline Hartmann in the December 2001 issue of 21st Century Science and Technology deals specifically with Max Planck’s findings, and reveals that the puzzle created by his discoveries remains unsolved: Today we are indebted to the continuing research of scientists like the Curies, Lise Meitner and Otto Hahn for a deeper insight into atomic structure. But the fundamental questions: what causes the motion of the electrons, is that motion constrained by certain geometrical laws,and why certain elements are more stable than others, are still not clear, and await new pioneering hypotheses and ideas.
We can already see the answer to Hartmann’s question emerging in this book. As we had said, Planck’s discoveries came about through the study of heat radiation. The introductory paragraph to Caroline Hartmann’s article is a perfect description of what he accomplished:
One hundred years ago, on December 14, 1900, the physicist Max Planck (1858-1947) announced (in a speech before the Kaiser Wilhelm Society of Berlin) his discovery of a new formula for radiation, which could describe all the regularities observed when matter was heated and began to radiate heat of various colors. His new formula, however, rested on an important assumption: that the energy of this radiation is not continuous, but occurs only in packets of a certain size. The difficulty was in how to make the assumption behind this formula physically intelligible. For, what is meant by “energy packets,” which are not even constant, but vary proportionally with the frequency of oscillation (Wein’s Displacement Law)?
Hartmann continues a bit later on: [Planck] knew that whenever you come upon an apparently insoluble problem in Nature, a higher, more complex lawfulness must lie behind it; or, in other words, there must be a different “geometry of the universe” than one had assumed before. Planck always insisted, for example, that the validity of Maxwell’s equations had to be re-established, because physics had reached a point where the so-called “physical” laws were not universally valid.
The core of Planck’s work can be stated in a simple equation, which describes how radiating matter releases energy in “packets” or bursts. The equation is E=hv, where E equals the energy that you end up measuring, v is the vibrating frequency of the radiation that releases the energy, and h is what is known as “Planck’s Constant,” which regulates the “flow” between v and E. Planck’s constant is listed as a value of 6.626. It is a dimensionless constant, meaning that it simply expresses a pure ratio between two values, and does not need to be assigned any specific measurement category other than that. Planck did not magically discover this constant, but rather painstakingly derived it by studying heat radiation of many different sorts.
This is the first major mystery that Johnson clears up with his research. He reminds us that in order to measure Planck’s constant, the Cartesian system of coordinates is used. This system is named after its founder, Rene Descartes, and all it means is that cubes are used to measure three dimensional space. This is so commonly done that most scientists don’t even consider it as anything unusual – just length, width and height in action. In experiments such as Planck’s, a small cube was used to measure the energy that moved through that area of space. This cube was naturally assigned a volume of “one” (1) in Planck’s measuring system, for the sake of simplicity.
However, when Planck wrote his constant he didn’t want it to be a decimal number, so he shifted the volume of the cube to 10. This made the constant 6.626 instead of 0.6626. What was truly important was the relationship between whatever was inside of the cube (6.626) and the cube itself (10.)
Ultimately it did not matter whether you assigned the cube a value of one, ten or any other number, as the ratio would stay the same. Planck only discerned the constant nature of this ratio through rigorous experimentation over many years of time, as we said. Now remember that depending on the size of the packet that is released, you will need to measure it with a different-sized cube.
Yet, whatever is inside that cube will always have a ratio of 6.626 units to the cube’s own volume of 10 units, regardless of the sizes involved. Right away we should notice something; the value of 6.626 is very close to 6.666, which is exactly 2/3rds of 10. So then we must ask, “What is so important about 2/3rds?”
Based on simple, measurable geometric principles explained by Fuller and others, we know that when we fit a tetrahedron perfectly inside of a sphere, it will fill exactly one-third of its total volume. The photon is actually composed of two tetrahedrons that are joined together, as we see in figure 4.6, and they then pass together through a cube that is only big enough to measure one of them at a time. The total amount of volume (energy) that moved through the cube will be two thirds (6.666) of the cube’s total volume, to which Planck had assigned the number 10.
Buckminster Fuller was the first to discover that the photon was indeed composed of two tetrahedrons joined in this way, and he announced it to the world at his Planet Planning address in 1969, after which time it was obviously forgotten. The slight 0.040 difference between the “pure” 6.666 or 2/3rds ratio and Planck’s constant of 6.626 is caused by the permittivity of vacuum space, which absorbs some of the energy involved. This “permittivity of the vacuum” can be precisely calculated by what is known as Coulomb’s equation.
To put it in simpler terms, the aetheric energy of the “physical vacuum” will absorb a small amount of whatever energy passes through it. This means that it will “permit” slightly less energy to pass through it than what was originally released. So, once we factor in Coulomb’s equation, the numbers work perfectly.
Furthermore, if we measure space using tetrahedral coordinates instead of cubical coordinates, then the need for Planck’s equation E=hv is removed, because the energy will now be measured to be the same on both sides of the equation – thus E (energy) will equal v (frequency) with no need for a “constant” between them.
The “pulses” of energy that were demonstrated by Planck’s constant are known to quantum physicists as “photons.” We normally think of “photons” as carriers of light, but that is only one of their functions. More importantly, when atoms absorb or release energy, the energy is transmitted in the form of “photons.” Researchers such as Dr. Milo Wolff remind us that the only thing we know for certain about the term “photon” is that it is an impulse that travels through the aether / zero-point energy field. Now, we can see that this information has a geometric component, which suggests that the atoms must have such geometry as well.