Compehensive Unified Field Theory

The golden ring to which most physicists aspire is a unified field theory that incorporates all of modern and classical physics. Some scientists and others call this a TOE or ‘theory of everything’, but it is no more than false hubris to believe that humans could possibly know and explain everything about the universe at this time. Einstein chased this goal for the last three decades of his life, basing his theoretical research on his general theory of relativity. Meanwhile, the vast majority of scientists supporting the other major accomplishment of the Second Scientific Revolution were investing all of their time and efforts to advancing the quantum theory and their quest has been extremely successful. They originally had no interest in a unified field theory. After Einstein died in 1955, his efforts were all but abandoned because of his philosophical stance against the prevalent Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum theory even though he had been one of quantum theory’s founders. During the 1970s the tables started to turn and quantum theorists became interested in unifying physics, although not from the foundational principles of relativity theory. They claimed that quantum theory was more fundamental than relativity so they began the same quest from a totally different direction despite their claims to be continuing Einstein’s quest.  Throughout the development of the ensuing standard quantum model, superstring theory and many other theoretical schemes, quantum theorists have remained resolute in their conviction that the quantum and relativity are mutually incompatible so the quantum must completely do away with and replace relativity once and for all. However, the quantum theory and relativity are not actually incompatible and, in fact, say the some of the same things about the nature of physical reality. When the similarities are fully defined and studied and the basic assumptions behind each of the theories are altered to reflect the similarities instead of the incompatibilities, only then can the point of their compatibility be determined and act as a unifying principle resulting in a completed unified field theory of the type that Einstein once sought. The development of this physical model of reality is not without irony. Not only is the quantum theory incomplete as Einstein argued in EPR, but Einstein’s general relativity is also seriously incomplete and true unification cannot be rendered complete at any level of reality until all the theoretical models being unified are themselves complete.

Science is a work in progress, although the progress that science has made over the past few decades has been vastly limited by the narrow, limited and dogmatic worldviews representing the major paradigms of physics. It is not hard or even overwhelmingly original to conclude that science has followed the wrong direction at a fork in the road and led itself into a corner with little to no room for escape. Both the quantum theory and general relativity have made spectacularly accurate predictions, nearly all of which have been verified, but these two paradigms remain mutually incompatible while the standard model of particles used within the quantum paradigm keeps predicting the existence of particles that are not falsifiable and completely beyond verification. Newer physical models such as the superstring and brane theories have not lived up to their promise and show no signs of settling the problems of unification for which they were designed. This book takes a different route and tells the story of a new form of unified field theory that combines or merges the best parts of the quantum theory and relativity together within a single field theory structure. It covers four primary areas of scientific inquiry: the macrocosm, the microcosm, the everyday world of life, mind and experience, and the abstract world of theoretical and philosophical mathematics and science. In so doing, this book offers the best chance for an alternative physics worldview that is nothing less than the science of our future, a preview of the science that will carry us into a brave new world of being and becoming our own future.

Keywords: Future physics, theory of everything, unified field theory, quantized space-time, consciousness, evolution, paraphysics

Since Einstein died in 1955, very few theoretical scientists have tried to complete his work because the pendulum of history has swung toward favoring field theories based on the quantum for the expected unification of physics. Nearly everyone now believes that the quantum (discrete point) and relativity (continuity) are incompatible and the quantum is more fundamental than relativity and continuity, so those who have sought unification have looked for new and unique quantum approaches to accomplish unification. However, the truth is that the quantum and relativity are not incompatible and the traditional differences between the two–discreteness and continuity, indeterminism and determinism–are just the outward appearances of an even deeper fundamental problem–geometric point and extension–that when solved renders relativity and the quantum completely compatible. This deeper problem is even more significant because Riemann knew of and failed to consider and even purposely ignored the problem of point-elements and based his differential geometry of surfaces on metric-elements alone. Therefore, expanding the Riemannian geometry to include point-elements, which can be interpreted as discrete points for the quantum, forms a fundamental enough foundation for developing a unified field theory.

Once the positivistic/escapist interpretation that human consciousness is epiphenomenal, i.e., accidental, is dismissed there are two possible approaches to the scientific study of consciousness. Bottom-up consciousness, from the individual organism or being to the universe, and Consciousness from the top-down, from the universe to the individual. These two approaches mark the outer boundaries of the present scientific search for a theoretical model of consciousness, even though Consciousness goes beyond science and moves into the realm of metaphysics. In any case, everything in between these two approaches is seriously muddled and clouded with speculations and metatheories that cannot be possible, which is common to the period preceding a scientific revolution. Some of those speculations and metatheories sound rather esoteric and even spiritual, which allows them to appeal to many people, but they would normally be considered non-scientific by definition if they were expressed for anything other than consciousness, which in itself presents a total mystery to science and the scientists who are willing to attempt to explain consciousness. On the other hand, what little concrete information science has at its disposal about consciousness does seem to match ideas in eastern mystical thought and in some cases earlier western ideas in Natural Philosophy that have been rejected by science, which further muddles the scientific quest for understanding consciousness. These ideas and concepts fit the qualitative aspects of mind that science normally associates with consciousness even better as well as the direct characteristics of consciousness, at least to the extent that such characteristics are known. Science needs to find a balance between them so it can maximize the effect of the next scientific revolution as well as the corresponding evolutionary leap in consciousness that is coming, but physics must simultaneously develop a working unified field theory to better define the universe in which consciousness of any kind, shape or form can and has developed.

The best evidence presently available for the afterlife has already been tried and found wanting, although there is a great deal of good and various levels of even better evidence when NDEs, reincarnation, new standards for verifying mediumship, death bed visions and other phenomena related to dying and the afterlife are considered. But none of these rises to the level of 'best evidence' for 'proving' the reality of the afterlife. The truth is that there is no falsifiable evidence that can distinguish between the afterlife and other paranormal phenomena, i.e., there are always alternative super-psi or general psi explanations for the data, stories and evidence gathered by parapsychologists and experienced by individuals. The afterlife hypothesis is neither falsifiable nor verifiable given the absolute best 'so-called evidence' available today. Only a valid theory could offer scientific verifiability and also distinguish whether the evidence gathered so far supports the afterlife concept or super-psi. So, with no valid theory of the afterlife available, either an independent acceptable theory based on specific phenomena or better yet as part of a greater comprehensive theory of physical reality, there is nothing on which to base a truly rigorous experiment that could verify the afterlife to the satisfaction of both the scientific and nonscientific communities. Some form of valid acceptable theory is necessary and long overdue to explain and verify the various paranormal phenomena as well as hone the scientific search for survival of consciousness and the afterlife. We must assume that at least consciousness survives as either part or the whole of any possible afterlife. All of the common paranormal examples that deal with the afterlife are in some way simply different data points that should be used to follow the scientific method and lead to some common physical concept that we identify as the afterlife, so the hypothesis can be tested and verified. Not one of these examples is based on anything other than experiences/observations for which no comprehensive scientific model has ever been developed and/or studied in enough detail to even attempt to verify even the minimum level survival of consciousness in some manner. Only one theoretical unification model in modern physics, the single (operational) field theory or SOFT, is comprehensive enough to model life, mind, and consciousness and their evolution in enough specific detail to even talk logically about survival of consciousness. Be this as it may, the only possible 'best evidence' would then be the direct experience of higher consciousness, as in NDEs and enlightenment, which are very personal experiences, but even then, it could only be used as evidence, the best evidence, when it can be analyzed and understood as a physical phenomenon within the context of SOFT, an equivalent or better theoretical model.

Many scientists have come to believe that any true unification theory in physics must include a concept of consciousness as well as a model for the mind that interprets the external physical/material world. And, that number is growing. This physical model goes even further. The single field theory includes a physical model of the neural net and explains how mind and consciousness can emerge from the physics of living organisms. Yet it is general enough to assimilate more intuitive models such as Andrews’ 0-D point Void which witnesses and co-creates higher-dimensional Riemannian geometrical realities as well as other more generalized physical models of consciousness to form a truly synergistic model of reality. In other words, physical reality and the consciousness that perceives and interprets that reality both come from the same source, they are co-created at the very beginning of the universe. A singular discrete 0-D point/twist Void emerged within the absolute spaceless-timeless Void of nothingness that preceded everything and through a logical sequence of events produced everything that now exists as our universe. This synergistic model goes well beyond the simple notion of mind and consciousness as mere human bound perceivers and interpreters of the external material/physical world by placing the physical origin of consciousness within every geometrical point in the universe itself. Although consciousness itself is not everywhere in the universe–it is not a property of every bit of matter we observe or event that we detect–the universal will of consciousness to emerge in all forms of life is everywhere in the universe. This physical model clearly demonstrates that the precursors to our experience of consciousness are fundamental elements and active participants in creating the physical world that we perceive and scientifically interpret through the application of physics.

Modern physics is based on two paradigms that emerged from the Second Scientific Revolution - relativity and the quantum. Since their inception these two theoretical giants have advanced science and society far beyond anything that their originators could have even dreamed up, but in a sense they seem to be progressing in different directions and are regarded mutually incompatible. Yet they come to a point in history where the next step in their own advancement would be to unify into a single overwhelming physical paradigm. The concept of unification is well known in relativity theory with many attempts dating from just a few short years after Einstein first developed relativity. But the hyperspace unification that seems to have originated with Kaluza in 1921 and was modified by Klein a few years later has become the best known attempt. This book has two parts. The first, Hyperspace, deals with the original Kaluza theory in all of its aspects and incarnations up until the 1960s. After the 1960s the idea of unification was adopted by quantum theoreticians based on their belief that the quantum is more fundamental than relative space-time. However, since the 1980s Klein’s adaptation of Kaluza’s theory has been used to unify physics under the quantum banner as has the purely quantum theory Standard Model. Yet both of these quantum attempts have fundamental problems that can only be solved by returning to Kaluza’s original theory as modified by Einstein and Bergmann in the 1930s. So the second part of the book, Continuum, tells the rest of the story and offers a new theory, a five-dimensional single field theory, the merges the best of both paradigms together. By merging the two paradigms instead of replacing one by the other, single field theory preserves all of the many successes of both theories. This is the book that every physicist, physical scientist and non-professional science advocate should read and every theoretical physicist and physics students must read.

An article by Sabine Hossenfelder and Stacey S. McGaugh, titled “Is Dark Matter Real?’, has just appeared in the August 2018 issue of Scientific American.  Every physicist, astronomer, astrophysicist and cosmologist as well as everyone interested in science needs to read this article because it portends one of the greatest scientific advances in several hundred years, the complete unification of physics and science in general. Due to new observational evidence in astronomy, they have concluded that “Astrophysicists have piled up observations that are difficult to explain with dark matter. It is time to consider that there may be more to gravity than Einstein taught us.” But they have understated the case.

In effect, the new observational data found by McGaugh and an international group of astronomers simply shows that specifically designated dark matter particles do not exist, so the supposed dark matter halos around spiral galaxies do not exist and the rotational speed discrepancies in galaxy orbiting stars and star systems that go unaccounted for by normal gravity are, in fact, due to a secondary effect of normal matter within the galaxy. This finding not only challenges the present theories of gravity (Newtonian and Einsteinian), which it demonstrates are incomplete, it also blows some big logical holes in the fundamentality of the quantum theory, the Standard Model of point-particles and quantum field theories in general that seem to rule the world of modern theoretical physics. Given other recent confirmations of Einstein’s general relativity, found mostly in the detection of gravitational waves that Einstein predicted a century ago, relativity theory seems on the ascendancy and quantum theory is falling behind. The time for a unified field theory that combines the best of both of these paradigms is at hand.

In 1915, Einstein introduced a radical and revolutionary new idea into science and human thought: Gravity was not a force. The observed gravitational attraction between two or more material bodies was the product of the material bodies following the shortest geodesic paths across the curvature of a space-time continuum. The amount or degree of curvature at any location depended on the local presence of matter. As radical as this idea was, the theory became a known and accepted part of physics within just a few years, which was quite rapid relative to the overall scale of changes in science. It was accepted so rapidly because a few scientists had been attempting to find a connection between non-Euclidean geometry (especially Riemannian) and physics for several decades as well as how the geometry of space (or space-time) was related to ultimate nature and structure of matter. However, Einstein’s theory also came as a surprise because no one had detected any specific flaw in Newtonian gravity theory and other researchers working on the problem of matter had expected matter to ultimately be electric (electromagnetic) in nature. Within this historical context, several scientists and mathematicians immediately noticed a problem with the new theory and took advantage of that problem to extend physics further than Einstein originally anticipated. Although a tensor placed at a point in space was used to represent the curvature through that point, the mathematics and physics at the point itself was not completely specified or explained. This flaw allowed others to develop non-Riemannian and pseudo-Riemannian geometries (also called tangent spaces) to explain geometry specifically at or in the individual points of space-time. Since they were independent of the Riemannian metric geometry of extended (metric) space, these new geometries could be used to explain the electromagnetic nature of matter without disturbing the metric or gravitational explanation given by general relativity. This not only began the search for a unified field theory, but it also demonstrated quite clearly that the attempted rigorization of mathematics that had occurred over the past two centuries was inadequate and mathematics was still intimately linked to physics. The story of how these new geometries developed is both interesting and intriguing, yet so much more. The development of physics over the next few decades cannot be completely understood without taking these events into account. This lost history explains fully both Einstein’s search for a unified field theory (with an emphasis on a metric or extension geometry) as well as the later development of quantum mechanics based on the uncertainty principle and how that relates to quantum field theories (using a point non-geometrical space or space-time), thus changing the whole historical context of modern physics.

We are living an extraordinary time in our civilization evolution, with the emergence of a fantastic holoinformational [24-31] quantum-holographic cosmovision wider than the quantum-relativistic paradigm of the beginning of the XX century [1-5]. Founded in Umesawa’s Quantum Field Theory [69-70] and non-local quantum information that permeates all levels of the Cosmos, exhaustively and definitelly proved in nowadays. The Second Quantum Physics Revolution of the last decade of the XX Century and the development of the Physics of Information and Quantum Information Theory [76,77,80] has demonstrated the quantum field is a Plenum, the “living void”, not a vacuum, full of quantum information and energy popping out of nothing, every billionth of trillionth of a second, self-organizing our universe, life and consciousness. It connects everything in the cosmos as a Unified Field of Consciousness [4,31] from quantum physics-chemistry, quantum biology and quantum mind, to quantum consciousness and quantum cosmology, all fine-tuned for the emergence of life and mind, showing that human evolution and the emergence of consciousness are the inevitable consequence of an intelligent holoinformational [24-25] universe. This holoinformational intelligent self-organizing field is continuously emerging from the informational plenum, that permeates all the Cosmos.

Many scientists have come to believe that any true unification model in physics must include a concept of consciousness as well as a model for the mind that interprets the external physical/material world. And, that number is growing. This particular physical model does just that. In fact it goes much further. Since Beichler's single field model includes a physical model of the neural net and explains how Mind and Consciousness can emerge from the physics of living organisms, it assimilates more intuitive models such as Andrews' 0-D point Void which witnesses and co-creates higher-dimensional Riemannian geometrical realities as well as other more generalized physical models of consciousness to form a truly synergistic model of reality. This synergistic model goes well beyond the notion of Mind and Consciousness as mere perceivers and interpreters of the external material/physical world. It clearly demonstrates that the precursors to our experience of Consciousness are fundamental elements and active participants in creating the physical world that we perceive and scientifically interpret through the application of physics. Andrews' intuitive approach to consciousness science It is well known that intuitives are often the very people who intimately experience first-hand knowledge of consciousness. Their views of consciousness and the inner workings of the world in general greatly differ from those of ordinary people and especially scientists. Even the word 'intuition' has been looked down upon in science as recently as a few decades ago. Scientists consider their own worldview above reproach, believing their insights are based upon acute observations of the external world around them. In general, scientists have historically looked down upon all types of intuitive knowledge and have obstinately refused to consider intuitive knowledge of consciousness and how it works in relation to the world as a whole. They view intuitive data with suspicion as no more than anecdotal evidence, without any scientific validity. Yet that evidence or data, anecdotal or not, can provide valid observations of consciousness and how consciousness works in the world at large. So to those few scientists willing to seriously consider information from intuitives, it can seem as though conservative scientists are wrong on this issue, as well as overly biased by acting completely in an unscientific manner within the broader meaning of science itself. Keeping this in mind, it is both interesting and informative to consider insights brought forward by Sperry Andrews whose undergraduate degree in science has been enhanced as a Near Death Experiencer (NDEr) from the age of four, nearly sixty years ago. Andrews has proposed a speculative bottom-up theory of everything in physics originating from nothing, including how top-down theories, such as general relativity and quantum mechanics, might approximate Jim Beichler's single field theory as well as theoretical models that posit a consciousness space or universe. Andrews asks if the solution to this question may be found in Bernhard Riemann's original conception of space curvature, whereby an n-dimensional space is embedded in an n+1 dimensional manifold: i.e., all 3-D points are united at

The best evidence presently available for the afterlife has already been tried and found wanting, although there is a great deal of good and various levels of even better evidence when NDEs, reincarnation, new standards for verifying mediumship, death bed visions and other phenomena related to dying and the afterlife are considered. But none of these rises to the level of ‘best evidence’ for ‘proving’ the reality of the afterlife. The truth is that there is no falsifiable evidence that can distinguish between the afterlife and other paranormal phenomena, i.e., there are always alternative super-psi or general psi explanations for the data, stories and evidence gathered by parapsychologists and experienced by individuals. The afterlife hypothesis is neither falsifiable nor verifiable given the absolute best ‘so-called evidence’ available today. Only a valid theory could offer scientific verifiability and also distinguish whether the evidence gathered so far supports the afterlife concept or super-psi. So, with no valid theory of the afterlife available, either an independent acceptable theory based on specific phenomena or better yet as part of a greater comprehensive theory of physical reality, there is nothing on which to base a truly rigorous experiment that could verify the afterlife to the satisfaction of both the scientific and non-scientific communities. Some form of valid acceptable theory is necessary and long overdue to explain and verify the various paranormal phenomena as well as hone the scientific search for survival of consciousness and the afterlife. We must assume that at least consciousness survives as either part or the whole of any possible afterlife. All of the common paranormal examples that deal with the afterlife are in some way simply different data points that should be used to follow the scientific method and lead to some common physical concept that we identify as the afterlife, so the hypothesis can be tested and verified. Not one of these examples is based on anything other than experiences/observations for which no comprehensive scientific model has ever been developed and/or studied in enough detail to even attempt to verify even the minimum level survival of consciousness in some manner. Only one theoretical unification model in modern physics, the single (operational) field theory or SOFT, is comprehensive enough to model life, mind, and consciousness and their evolution in enough specific detail to even talk logically about survival of consciousness. Be this as it may, the only possible ‘best evidence’ would then be the direct experience of higher consciousness, as in NDEs and enlightenment, which are very personal experiences, but even then, it could only be used as evidence, the best evidence, when it can be analyzed and understood as a physical phenomenon within the context of SOFT, an equivalent or better theoretical model.
Keywords: afterlife, best evidence, NDEs, enlightenment, fourth dimension, hyperspace, four-dimensional space-time, five-dimensional time-space, unification, 0-D point/twist, psi, paranormal phenomena, consciousness, higher consciousness, A-fields, physical evolution, unification, psi, ‘pattern matching’

A few years after Einstein first penned his general theory of relativity, a few scientists came to the conclusion that it should be extended to include both electromagnetism and the quantum in a unified or unitary field theory. While several mathematicians and scientists sought an immediate unification of electromagnetism and gravity by filling a point gap in the Riemannian geometry that Einstein used and Kaluza sought to unify them by adding a fifth dimension at each point in the four of space-time, another group of scientists in England began a completely independent search for unification by taking Riemann’s suggestion of an embedding higher-dimensional manifold more seriously. They also sought a more realistic and practical unification with the quantum from the very beginning of their efforts rather than leaving the quantum as something to emerge naturally when gravity and electromagnetism were united. This independent line of theoretical research began with the work and ideas of Wilson and his student Flint, but was carried on for another four decades by Flint and his students after he became a professor at the University of London. As each important advance was made in either relativity or quantum theory, Flint sought to incorporate that advance into his own five-dimensional theoretical model. Yet like Clifford and his followers before him and despite the great effort he personally made, Flint’s work and the work of his colleagues and students have been all but totally missed and then forgotten by the rest of the scientific community. This paper presents an excerpt from volume two "Phallacies in Fysics: The untold story of modern physics", which will be published in the near future.

Why, despite all efforts to the contrary, have attempts at unification based on the supposedly more fundamental quantum theory failed miserably? The truth is that the essential idea or concept of the quantum itself has never been fully understood. What is the quantum, or rather, what is its ultimate nature? Science may be able to work adequately with the quantum; in a sense science is quite articulate in the language of the quantum, i.e., its mathematical interpretation of the quantum mechanics, but science has no idea of the true physical nature of the quantum. Scientists and philosophers have wasted energy and efforts on irrelevant issues such as the debate over determinism and indeterminism instead of carefully analyzing the physical source of the quantum. Only with a true understanding of the physical nature of the quantum will the unification of the quantum and relativity ever become a reality.

Keywords: Quantum, change, unification, space-time, relativity, hidden variables, five-dimensional, Einstein, Kaluza, Clifford

This work examines a question of a true place of Moon in the whole Universe. Meanwhile the contemporary atheistic per se science considers it as a lifeless Earth adjunct it is actually an axis of the Universe and the throne of God. Being thought as a corpse the Moon is the Life itself. 

Conceptual footholds of the Theory

1. The Subject of the Unified Field Theory is the World (Universe), God’s Creation. It is a Womb of all living, their Wide and the Way to God.
2. God is the Love, Strength of strength; World is this Power as Fetus.
3. The World is Omnes, Absoluteness; this world is relativeness: the clay as the shadow of this Fire, Eternity.
4. The Einstein’s mistake in the attempt to create World Theory is that he created the theory of this world, shadow without the Fire as a moonless darkness.
5. Unity of this world and Other world is given to us by their bracing, the Moon as a face of Creator in this world. The visible world is a wheel on the Axis, Moon; the Axis of the whole World is God.
6. People of the World are intelligent by God Anthropes of this world and Other world as their series, united by the Мoon; the human of the Earth is its part.
7. The World without the God is acephality as viewable by contemporary science; the whole World is the Mystery now. Only the Word, the vessel of both, will reveal it to us. The Cognition is the Love: Word of words, Catcher of souls; the human is lives by it.

*  *  *

СОЗДАНЬЕ ЕДИНОЙ ТЕОРИИ ПОЛЯ — ВОЗВРАТ ДВУХ ЗАБЫТЫХ ЛЮДЬМИ И НАУКОЮ ИХ: ДУШАМ — БОГА, ОЧАМ НАШИМ БРЕННЫМ — ЛУНЫ. В ТОМ РАБОТА МОЯ.

Речь в книге — об истинном месте Луны во Вселенной. В то время как нынешней, Бога не чтящей науке Луна мертвый пленник Земли, людям древним она — мира Ось и Господний престол; трупом мнима, на деле Луна — Жизнь сама.

Проблема созданья Теории Мира, Всего — дух мирской, царь умов в наши дни: зло — не Благо, не Знанье — невежество. Скверный побег не дает добрый плод, лживый рот не щедр Истиной. То — мир сей ныне. Бог, Мира Творец, чтим им праздным глаголом; наука ж его, млат прогресса, не зрит Бога вовсе.

Слуг Розни с моралью двойной звал Христос «ф|АРИС|еи». Науки бессутней творец АРИС|тотель — злой ÁРЕС, АРÉС|т душ — был им: чтивший Бога в речах, он отсек Главу эту от глаз, взяв опорой Всему зримый мир — часть без Целого, бренье без Вечности. Сущая на сем фундаменте как пустоте, дуб без Корня, наука мертва, с тем — бессильна явить Мир нам, чье Колесо в розни с Осью, Творцом, не вертúтся — и, мертвое, тайно для нас. Тайной было оно с тем Эйнштейну: прозреть Абсолютность — Мир Вечность — не смог он, зря лишь относительность: бренный сей мир, Мира тень.

Зная то, Миру я возвращаю Творца: Колесу — Ось его. То — возврат очей от Сатаны, Розни, к Богу, Единому, от Аристотеля — к корню без порчи, Платону, целящий в очах горний ток — реку Знанья разъятую. Столп ее цельной — Луна, Ось очей и трон Бога. Мнясь мертвым придатком Земли, в очах горних она — Мать ее: САТ|еллит как SAT, Истина (санскр.), сущих Жизнь. Бренных глаз дыра, в вечных Луна — Огнь-Любовь, главный нам, точка сборки Всего: в небе — Центр его, в оке — зрачок. Знать Луну, Корень, нам — ведать всё.

Жизнь — Вселенная, Мир: Божье Целое как Состав наш, Корень древ сущих, капль Океан. В своем «Логико-философском трактате» Людвиг Витгенштейн говорит о Вселенной и языке людей, данном им Богом к Познанью, как паре единых, в которой логическая структура языка тождественна онтологической структуре Мира. С тем, Речь — видность Мира и Мир сам: от Бога, Истока, Река, Суть РЕКУ|щих; из Мира составлены, Речью составлены мы. О том сказано: «Смерть и жизнь — во власти языка, и любящие его вкусят от плодов его» (Прит. 18:21).

В речи — Мир, Предмет главный наш; речь — и есть Мир. С тем, попытки созданья Единой теории Поля — Вселенной, Простора очей и Стези душ к Творцу — тщетны в физике, знании т|РУП|ном: Природе, безглавой трудом Аристотеля, форме (санскр. РУП|а) бессутней. Теории сей Оплот — Речь: Мир в устах, Полнота.

Опорные пункты Теории

1. Единой теории Поля Предмет — Мир (Вселенная), Бога Дитя: Лоно сущих, Простор их и к Богу Стезя.
2. Бог — Любовь, Сила сил сущих; Мир — Сила эта как Плод.
3. Мир есть Всё, Абсолютность; мир сей — относительность:  бренье как Вечности — Мира, Огня — тень.
4. Ошибка Эйнштейна: Теорию Мира взыскуя, явил он труд мира сего: без Огня тени как тьмы безлунной.
5. Единство Сего и Того, Мир, дано нам их скрепой, Луною как ликом Творца в мире сем. Зримый мир — колесо на Оси, Луне; Ось Мира полного — Бог.
6. Люди Мира — разумные Богом Антропы Сего и Того как ряд их, Луной цельный; Земли человек — часть его.
7. Мир без Бога, науки дней новых кумир — безголов; цельный Мир — ныне Тайна. Лишь Слово, сосуд Всего, явит его нам. Познанье — Любовь: С|ЛОВ|о слов, душ LOV|E’ц, коим жив че’LOVE’к.

Assuming a real fifth dimension and the validity of the Einstein-Kaluza model of space-time leads to two alternative models of physical reality. These two possibilities are only subject to the Kaluza condition that all A-lines are "constant and equal" and the Einstein condition that no five-dimensional theory can be considered unless it explains why the fifth dimension cannot be perceived or detected. Based upon Kaluza’s “cylindrical” condition or “A-cylindricity”, the fifth dimension is “collapsed” or “contracted” and thus displays extremely small measurement, which leads to modern superstring theories. On the other hand, the four-dimensional space-time continuum could instead be a thin 'sheet' whose points are extended in the fifth direction as macroscopically extended geometrical lines, in which case the five-dimensional hypothesis can be used to model physical reality as constituted by a single field of varying density within the fifth dimension. We cannot perceive or detect the fifth dimension because we are constrained to carry out our material and thus ‘physical’ existence within the ‘sheet’, answering Einstein's objection to the five-dimensional hypothesis. From this point forward, the five-dimensional model of material reality leads to a logically consistent theory of life, mind and emergent consciousness that can explain the existence and action of psi.

Did any physics experts expect SUPERRELATIVITY paper, a physics revolution producing the EINSTEIN-RODGERS RELATIVITY EQUATION, producing the HAWKING-RODGERS BLACK HOLE RADIUS, and producing the STEFAN-BOLTZMANN-SCHWARZSCHILD-HAWKING-RODGERS BLACK HOLE RADIATION POWER LAW, as the author gave a solution to The Clay Mathematics Institute's very difficult problem about the Navier-Stokes Equations? The Clay Mathematics Institute in May 2000 offered that great $million prize to the first person providing a solution for a specific statement of the problem: " Prove or give a counterexample of the following statement: In three space dimensions and time, given an initial velocity field, there exists a vector velocity and a scalar pressure field, which are both smooth and globally defined, that solve the Navier-Stokes Equations. " Did I, the creator of this paper, expect SUPERRELATIVITY to become a sophisticated conversion of my unified field theory ideas and mathematics into a precious fluid dynamics paper to help mathematicians , engineers and astro-physicists? [1]. Yes, but I did not expect such superb equations that can be used in medicine or in outer space! In this paper, complicated equations for multi-massed systems become simpler equations for fluid dynamic systems. That simplicity is what is great about the Navier-Stokes Equations. Can I delve deeply into adding novel formulae into the famous Schwarz-schild's equation? Surprisingly, yes I do! Questioning the concept of reversibility of events with time, I suggest possible 3-dimensional and 4-dimensional coordinate systems that seem better than what Albert Einstein used, and I suggest possible modifications to Maxwell's Equations. In SUPERRELATIVITY, I propose that an error exists in Albert Einstein's Special Relativity equations, and that error is significant because it leads to turbulence in the universe's fluids including those in our human bodies. Further, in SUPERRELATIVITY, after I create Schwarzschild-based equations that enable easy derivation of the Navier-Stokes Equations, I suddenly create very interesting exponential energy equations that simplify physics equations, give a mathematical reason for turbulence in fluids, give a mathematical reason for irreversibility of events with time, and enable easy derivation of the Navier-Stokes Equations. Importantly, my new exponential Navier-Stokes Equations are actually wave equations as should be used in Fluid Dynamics. Thrilled by my success, I challenge famous equations by Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking [2] [3]. Keywords * BA (Dble Maj Maths); Hon DSc (Taxila Institute for Research), http://institute.iqmind.org/institute/; World Genius Directory 2014 Genius of the Year—Asia, www.psiq.org/home.html.

The problem of creation of Unitary Field theory, or the Theory of Everything, which the Einstein was so eager to solve by means of physics, remained unsolved since it is solvable only by means of the Word: because the Word, according to Bible — is the God and «the God has»: Universe, His Child. This particular solution is given by the linguistic work about the Existing, offered by me to you and based on the Pressing method, the founder of which is Dionysus (Bacchus) — the ancient's god of the Word, Moon and Wine. // Познать Мир, Божий Храм - есть познать Слово нам. Слово - это Луна.

Our physical and material reality is not what we might ordinarily expect from our common observations and experiences of reality. To a physicist, whose job it is to explain that reality and how it works, that reality is so much more. Our common 3-space is electrically constituted while the 4th spatial dimension in the Clifford time - independent model, which is the 5th dimension of space-time in the - Kaluza model, is Einstein magnetically constituted. According to the Single Field Theory (SOFT), our 4-D space-time has a sub-microscopic 'effective width' in the fifth direction while each point in space-time is macroscopically extended in the fifth direction. So our universe is essentially a 4-D 'sheet' embedded in a 5-D manifold (Mathematically speaking), but the 'sheet' is still continuous with and not discrete from the universe outside of the 'sheet' - The 'sheet' and the 5-D single field are not separate things The 'sheet' is merely the densest portion of the single field. From this structure, SOFT can explain nearly all physical phenomena that have been observed in nature.

This summary sheet includes: (1) the “Single Field Theory” (SOFT) equations and their relationships that amount to a final version of Einstein’s unified Field theory; (2) a “Unification Tree” that shows the historical relationship between various unification attempts; (3) the chart “Evolution of Classical Unified Field Theories” that shows the development of Einstein’s and related work; (4) a 1980 diagram of a particle in quantized curved space-time; (5) a more modern depiction of a particle in quantized curved space-time; (6) a rough picture of a Lithium six nucleus that unifies the features of the shell models, fluid drop models, Yukawa potential and quantum tunneling; (6) a graphical representation of the electronic orbits around a nucleus in the context of the quantized space-time continuum; and (7) a graph showing “The Atom as single field potential”.  This Handout from the Vigier IX Symposium accompanied the presentation "Modern Fysics Phallacies: The best way ‘not to unify physics’ turns out to be the only way ‘to unify physics’."

Many physicists believe that the unification of physics within a single paradigmatic theory has been the primary goal in science for only the past few decades, but this would not be true. Unification was the original goal of Einstein and a few other physicists throughout the 1920s to the 1960s during a period of time when quantum theorists were ironing out their own unique set of problems. The unification of physics under the guise of the quantum paradigm only emerged during the 1970s and has since overshadowed all attempts to unify physics from the fundamental principles of relativity. Today too many physicists believe, without any supporting evidence, that the concept of the quantum is far more fundamental than relativity so earlier attempts based on the continuity of relativity have been all but abandoned. However, both approaches are basically flawed because both relativity and the quantum theory are incomplete as they now stand. Had either side of the quantum versus relativity controversy just simplified their worldview and sought commonality between the two, unification would have been accomplished long ago. The point is, literally, that the discrete quantum, continuous relativity, basic physical geometry and classical physics all share one common characteristic – a paradoxical duality between a dimensionless point (discrete) and an extended length (continuity) in any dimension – and if the problem of unification is approached from an understanding of how this paradox relates to each paradigm all of physics could be unified under a single new theoretical paradigm. Unfortunately there has never been a method, either mathematical or physical, by which a three-dimensional space can be generated from two or more dimensionless points. This shortcoming raises the question – how can the dimensionless point-particles of the Standard Model which presently dominates physics be extended to account for the three-dimensional space in which the physical interactions they describe occur? Fortunately, this question can now be answered, but the answer does not favor the Standard Model of the quantum as it is presently interpreted. Instead, a unified field theory based on continuity that completely unifies the quantum and relativity and completely incorporates the Standard Model as well as the Superstring, Brane and commonly accepted classical theories has been completed.

Our ‘Higher Sense’ will come with the realization of a higher dimension of physical reality which corresponds with what we presently call the ‘para’- normal aspects of our common reality. This is the next step in the evolution of human consciousness according to Robert Browne who wrote of it in 1919. But first, physics must be unified, the quantum and relativity, by a theory of higher dimensional space-time. There is presently a convergence of ideas which will soon lead to a new revolution is science, out of which a new five-dimensional quantized space-time will emerge. We are no longer blind-men trying to define an elephant by touch, but scientists with the blinders removed, seeing the same thing. We only need to decide upon the common terms to define that thing, whether we recognize it as psi, consciousness or physical reality itself.

Since the 1970s, an ever growing number of theoretical physicists have become interested in unifying the quantum and relativity upon a quantum basis. Before the 1970s, only Einstein and a select few sought unification, but their theoretical work was based upon the continuity of relativity rather than quantum’s discrete nature of reality. To date neither paradigm has developed anything that would appear to unify physics, except for the work of one physicist and a few of his colleagues. H.T. Flint published more than thirty-five articles in well-known peer-reviewed journals over a period of four decades, extending relativity to include electromagnetism and the quantum. Yet his work and that of his close associates is almost completely unknown today. Flint published his complete unified field theory in the 1960s, well before most quantum theorists even began thinking along the lines of unification.  Strangely enough, Flint’s unification theory has been completely forgotten by a scientific community that has become enamored enough with the idea of unification that it would accept the most outrageous and non-intuitive ideas as long as they are based on the quantum, but then Kaluza’s five-dimensional unification of relativity and electromagnetism supposedly was not known until it was rediscovered by the superstring theorists, or so they claim. In reality, these ideas were lost in plain sight for decades simply because the physics community was unwilling to recognize accomplishments based on relativity theory.

Most scientists and scholars are familiar with Sir Arthur Eddington’s role in verifying GR in 1919. A few less are aware of his work introducing the theory to the English scientific community. Still less know of Eddington’s extensions of relativity theory, especially his attempts to develop a unified field theory. But very few scholars, historians or even physicists are aware of the important role played by other English scientists in the acceptance and development of relativity. In fact, H.T. Flint and his colleagues published more than thirty-five articles in peer reviewed journals in Britain over a period of four decades in an attempt to extend relativity to include electromagnetism and the quantum. Yet his work and that of his close associates is almost completely unknown today, in spite of the fact that he published a book describing his complete unified field theory in the 1960s, well before most quantum theorists even began thinking along the lines of unification. In a world filled with speculations about gravitons, superstrings, quantum loops and other unification models, Flint did it first, but his work has all but disappeared from the scientific consciousness. From Eddington to Flint, the English school of relativists has produced ardent supporters of relativity and numerous advances beyond the standard interpretations of general relativity.

In the past few decades two new ‘crises’ for fundamental physics have emerged by the observation of phenomena that indicate the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. These are not problems which can be solved by quantum theory, but rather problems that are related to gravity theory as expressed by the general theory of relativity. Numerous ideas and hypotheses have been suggested to explain these problems, but no particular hypothesis or resulting model has yet proven satisfactory. No model proposed within the framework of the present paradigms seems to be able to explain either DM or DE even though most physicists agree that the two should have a single common explanation. However, a new model has been developed to explain both DM and DE by reinterpreting and unifying the present paradigms. This model includes a fundamental change in Newtonian gravity theory that expands three-dimensional space to four dimensions and thus forces the acceptance of an extrinsically curved four-dimensional space-time in relativity. The extra gravity term can then be equated to the Lambda-CDM that has already been added to Einstein’s equation describing the surface curvature of the universe and leads to a unification with the quantum. Yet this new model is not without consequences for the rest of physics and science. Accepting this new model would mean accepting the reality of a macroscopically extended fourth space-like dimension.