Y-Bias #2 – Not-accommodated Phenomena

Not-Accommodated Phenomena
In contrast to the simple, elegant, uniformly applicable and universally observed set of phenomena defined by Bak/Ayers, the architecture of the Standard Model fails to accommodate a number of important recent discoveries. Additionally, theoretical models recently developed to describe the dynamics which govern scalar interactions have thus far failed to accommodate rigorously documented phenomenological anomalies such as non-local effects at a distance, [[i]] scalar non-local field effects,[[ii]] inertial mass reduction in non-linear gyroscopic oscillations,[[iii]] consciousness interactions with primary particle and photon behaviors and beams of laser light,[[iv]] delayed-choice experiments in astrophysical observations,[[v]] super-luminal data transport rates,[[vi]] non-local field effect persistence,[[vii]] over-unity plasma discharge effects[[viii]], and the energy DE generated by the separation and recombination of Hydrogen atoms in a vacuum.[[ix]] Recent astronomical observations such as the behaviors of black holes, temperatures in excess of 100 million degrees F at the core of newly formed stars and galaxies, observed variations in the speed of light, and other naturally occurring phenomena not accommodated by the Standard Model, are both accommodated and predicted by the new model described here.
Standard Physical Model:
R. Santilli, in his widely recognized and published work, has described the Standard Model as follows[[x]]:

In the 1950s and ’60s scientists faced a bewildering array of particles coming from particle accelerators as they pushed to ever higher energies. Order was offered in the 1960s when several scientists proposed what is now called the Standard Model.

In it, six types of Quark (and corresponding anti-Quark) are the building blocks for heavy particles. Mesons (middleweight particles) are made of two Quarks (or antiquarks). Baryons (heavyweights, including Protons and Neutrons in the nuclei of atoms) are made of three Quarks (or antiquarks).

Electrons, described as buzzing in clouds around the nucleus, are in a separate category called Leptons (lightweights). There are only six Leptons: Electrons, muons, and taus, plus three corresponding neutrinos. Leptons are their own fundamental particles. Like Quarks, Leptons are believed to be fundamental particles with no underlying structure.

Figure 1

One of the fundamental question which remains unanswered by the Standard Model is compelling, when stated as follows:

If Einstein’s GTR [General Theory of Relativity] is admitted as the defining standard for all field effects which operate in the cosmos, and given that the relativistic attributes of C [the speed of light] constitute an absolute upper limit to the rate of information transport velocities in the 4-dimensional universe, by what combination of primary interactions is the cosmos able to operate in real-time, across 15- 20 Billion light years, as an SOC system?

This question, in turn, gives rise to a discussion of other fundamental issues, including (1) the nature of the set of properties currently referred to as mass, magnetism and gravitational forces, as reflected in the Alpha Constant[[xi]]; (2) the nature and dynamics of the class of phenomena currently referred to as “primary field effects;” and (3) the incompatible operative dynamics encompassed by current formulations of electromagnetism [as reformulated by Myron Evans, Lawrence Crowell etal] [[xii]], quantum expressions of the gravitational forces and the laws of thermodynamics [as clarified by M. Melehey] [[xiii]], and the reformulation of Hadronic Mechanics [as produced by Santilli etal].

Intrinsic to this set of issues are the ancillary issues related to the role and nature of (1) hadronic spinors [Cartesian torsion as defined by Santilli’s reformulated model of Hadronic mechanics] [[xiv]], (2) non-local scalar field effects [as experimentally verified by Gisin, Aspect, Wheeler, Poponin and others] [[xv]], and (3) the coupling of consciousness with hadronic interactions, photonic effects, local and non-local field effects and related phenomena [as experimentally verified by Drexler University, Eyring Research Institute, Aluminum Research Center, and others [[xvi]], and Dr. Dean Radin, UNLV] [[xvii]].

One fundamental shortcoming of the Standard Model illustrates how severely crippled this model has become. The Standard Model of physics takes for granted the often-stated “fact” that while a fixed primary charge produces a set of resultant fields and field effects, which are radiated directionally, in terms of varying weighted vector velocities, time and spin polarization, angular momentum and waveforms [as measured in Fermi units of 10-13 cm], usually in the form of photons, as a consequence of its interaction with surrounding charges and its locale, the dynamics of its interactions have not yet been adequately explained. Further, the Standard Model does not illuminate the paradox that while the charge ensemble produces energy as a result of its interactions with other charge ensembles or field effects, experimental evidence demonstrates that this interaction takes place in spite of the fact that no observable energy is input to the source charge.

Again, in Bearden we find,

Experiment establishes there is no observable energy input to the source charge. Yet charges continuously pour out energy and establish all EM [electromagnetic] fields, potentials, and their energy quanta. Classical EM and electrical engineering models accept that the associated charges are somehow the sources of all EM fields, potentials, and their energy output. But the models assume that the charges create those fields and potentials and their energy, from nothing at all, because they assume there is no dynamic energy input to the charge. Thus, present electrical power engineering uses a seriously flawed EM model that assumes total violation of the conservation of energy law. [[xviii]]

Second, Bell’s Theorem and the General Theory of Relativity predict non-local effects at a distance.[[xix]] Gisin’s 1997 experimental verification of Bell’s Theorem at CERN demonstrates conclusively that non-locality at a distance is an intrinsic attribute of Electron-Positron pairs.[[xx]] Nevertheless, non-locality and well documented anomalies involving non-local field effects, such as those referred to in the literature as Poponin’s Phantom DNA Effect[[xxi]], are prohibited by the current model of physics as universally occurring, natural scalar phenomena.

Third, the current notion, embodied in the GTR and EPR [Einstein, Podalski, Rosen] formulation of gravitational effects, is that gravitational force, electromagnetic force, the strong and weak nuclear forces are primary, pre-existing and mutually exclusive.[[xxii]] Y-Bias/Angularity Theory suggests that the traditional field effects identified by the Standard Model are neither primary nor mutually exclusive.[[xxiii]] Rather, when viewed in the context of Y-Bias interactions, all local-linear [L2] and nonlocal/nonlinear [N2L2] field effects are found to be derivatives of the same set of primary scale Y-Bias interactions occurring at the Zero Point, as defined and governed by Bak’s autopoietic rules of self-organizing criticality.

Fourth, while the work of Bak etal rigorously validates the operative dynamics of autopoietic interactions in SOC systems, physics as a convention and Science as an institution have thus far failed to integrate this seminal information into the fabric of the Standard Model. The absence of a cogent cosmology, based on SOC rules, renders the Standard Model both incomplete and fundamentally flawed because it cannot accommodate any of the naturally-occurring non-local effects at a distance — phenomena which have been observed, documented, rigorously verified and consistently reported for more than 100 years, and which are the fundamental constituent attributes of the fabric of the cosmos.

Fifth, the Second Postulate of the STR [Special Theory of Relativity] sets an arbitrary upper limit to the relative velocity of both physical and virtual photons operating in L4. Nevertheless, rigorously disciplined experimental evidence demonstrates that semantic information [in both digital and analog forms] can be propagated and received at least 109 C ([1]) [this refers to capital C as a relativistic value, as opposed to ‘c’, which is accepted as an absolute value in current formulations of field forces][[xxiv]], without attenuation by any known interposed materials or distance.

Sixth, the General Theory of Relativity [GTR] and the exceptions provided in the 2nd Postulate of the Special Theory [STR], which describe quantized radiation of virtual photons, are inconsistent with a rigorous analysis of photographic imaging conducted during the past decade by the Hubble Space Telescope. According to the GTR,[[xxv]] Hubble should not be able to snap sharply focused pictures of far distant objects. Nevertheless, Hubble’s images are crisp and sharply focused, regardless of the absolute distance to the light-emitting source. According to Ragazzoni etal, whose team studied Hubble pictures of a galaxy more than 5 billion light-years away and, separately, an exploding star 42 million light-years distant,

When light arrives from a distant object, some parts of the light’s wave should be retarded with respect to others, because each would take slightly different paths through the “foam.” [ref: ”quantum foam’ as found in Superstring and M Theory]. Light will appear to come from positions around the actual source, causing a blur.[[xxvi]]

“You don’t see a universe that is blurred,” he said. “If you take any Hubble Space Telescope Deep Field image you see sharp images, which is enough to tell us that the light has not been distorted or perturbed by fluctuations in space-time from the source to the observer.”

According to GTR, light is said to move in very small but measurable quanta. Time is presumed to move in correspondingly miniscule quantum bits. The bits are assumed to comport with Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which describes physics at the large scale of the universe. In the final analysis, Einstein asserted that time, gravity and the fabric of space are all different manifestations of the same underlying phenomenon.

However, in recent years, theorists and rigorously verified experimental evidence have shown that a pair of quanta, consisting of a virtual photon of the Planck length and a similarly miniscule packet of Planck time, should be the smallest measurable physical components in the cosmos. Below these thresholds things should become undifferentiated [e.g., at the scale of the Physical Vacuum]. If light’s travel is quantized as described in GTR, it could not, according to current theory, be variable in units below the Planck limit.

“If time doesn’t become ‘fuzzy’ beneath a Planck interval, this discovery will present problems to several astrophysical and cosmological models, including the Big Bang model of the universe.” [[xxvii]].

One challenge for proponents of the Standard Model, if the studies by Lieu and Ragazzoni are on track, is that the instant of the Big Bang would have involved an infinitely hot and dense condition, which is specifically prohibited by the Standard Model and current theory. This anomaly strongly suggests that Time, as a quantized element of L4, and as predicted by Y-Bias/Angularity Theory, does not exist at the Zero Point. This suggests, in turn, that Time, as a mutually distinct dimension demonstrating its own energy density, is therefore a product of the primary scalar interactions which occur at the Zero Point, which serve to convert virtual charge ensembles with positive entropy to actual charge ensembles with dualistic properties demonstrating dissipative entropy.

Since this element of the new model is supported by rigorously validated mathematical expressions and verified by observable phenomena, the nature of the cosmos, including all its attributes in L4, must be fundamentally different than that which is described by the GTR and the Standard Model.
Field Effects – Flaws and Myths
The current notion, embodied in the GTR and EPR formulation of gravitational effects, is that gravitational force, electromagnetic force, and the strong and weak nuclear forces are the only forces in operation in the cosmos. Further, it is held that these field effects are primary, pre-existent to any interactions at any scale, and mutually exclusive.[[xxviii]] This dictum requires that the four ‘primary’ field effects must be invariant; that is, wherever they are observed, they must operate with absolute linear consistency at all scales. The literature is now replete with impeccably documented evidence which demonstrates that none of these fields are invariant at any scale. Further, experimental evidence currently demonstrates that each of these field effects can be arbitrarily mitigated by the application of suitably engineered experimental macroscopic techniques which are the product of their mutual interactions.

Rigorously disciplined experimental reports demonstrate, for example, that the speed of light in a local and universal sense is neither invariant nor restricted to either upper or lower limits[[xxix]]; that gravitational force can be mitigated in a targeted locale[[xxx]]; that information transport velocities can operate in excess of 109 times C under controlled conditions[[xxxi]]; and that the disciplined exercise of human choice exerts a repeatable, demonstrable, quantifiable effect on matter, energy and the four ‘primary’ field effects[[xxxii]].

While the phenomenological evidence is no longer arguable, no cogent explanation has yet been supplied in the context of the Standard Model to describe these interactions in a way which is consistent, experimentally verifiable or universally applicable. The authors posit that if the field effects described in the Standard Model are primary, no manipulation of a product of their interactions or effects at any scale can have the effect of mitigating them. Mitigations of all known field effects at all scales are now shown to comprise a ubiquitous set of localized exceptions to the generally accepted rules. This insight demands that the four ‘primary’ field effects be recognized as derivative effects which are manifestations of [and therefore subject to the dynamics of] an underlying set of quantifiable primary causes.

Y-Bias Theory holds that the traditional primary field effects are neither primary nor mutually exclusive.[[xxxiii]] Rather, the local-linear and nonlocal/nonlinear [referred to hereafter as L2/N2L2] field effects observed, verified, reported and described in the literature are all derivatives of the same primary Y-Bias interactions occurring at the Zero Point, governed by SOC dynamical rules, and carried from the most finite to the largest scales as primary, intrinsic, self-referential, and autopoietic attributes of Nature itself.

[1] 109: This mathematical expression means that the underlying factor [C, the speed of light] is multiplied by the number ten, followed by 9 zeros, or the number 10,000,000,000.
[i] Ref Gisin etal
[ii] Ref. Poponin etal
[iii] Ref. Plotknov etal
[iv] Ref. Aspect etal ; see also Drexler University @Faust et al ; see also Eyring Research Institute [Spoon Bending Studies] ref.
[v] Ref. Wheeler etal
[vi] Nimtz etal, Yang etal, Hodowanec etal
[vii] King etal
[viii] Ref. Shpilman etal. See also Langmuir’s Hydrogen recombinant energy differentials.
[ix] Langmuir, I., Hydrogen Atom EMF Behaviors, ref: see also, Armagnac, A.P., Magic With Magnetism, Popular Science, June 1944.
[x] Santilli, Il Grande Grido, ref. See also Prof. Ruggero Maria Santilli
CV at www.i-b-r.org/santilli.htm
President and Editor in Chief
Algebras, Groups and Geometries
Hadronic Journal
Hadronic J. Supplement
35246 US 19 North, # 215
Palm Harbor, FL 34684, U.S.A.
Tel. +1-727-934 9593
Mob. +1-727-421 7976
Fax +1-727-934 9275
E-address <ibr@gte.net>
Web sites
www.neutronstructure.org www.nuclearwasterecycling.com

[xi] Why Constants of Nature May Be Changing, 25Nov03, Northeastern Univ.
[xii] Evans, M. etal, Reformulation of Maxwell’s Electrodynamics, ref
[xiii] Melehey, M., reformulation of the Laws of Theromodynamics, ref
[xiv] Santilli, R., reformulation of Hadronic Mechanics, JNE ref
[xv] Poponin, ibid. Also Aspect, ibid. Also, Wheeler, ibid. Also, Gisin, ibid. See also D. Faust/ Drexler University Karen Gersten Effects.
[xvi] Crussard, C., Pechiney Ugine Kuhlmann, Paris; J. Bouvaist, Pechiney Aluminum Research Center, Voreppe, Study of Certain Seemingly Abnormal Deformations and Transformations of Metals, A Translation of “`etude de quleques de` formations et transformations de Metaux”, C. Crussard & J. Bouvaist, “Memoires Scientifiques Revue Metallurgie”, February 1978. Translation Reviewed and Edited by Herve de Maigret and Pamela Maigret, in cooperation with Charles Crussard of Pechiney Ugine Huhlmann of Paris, France, with Eugene Kovalenko and David Faust of the Eyring Research Institute, Provo, Utah, November 1978, revised after final review by Charles Crussard, March 1979. From the introduction,

“…Thus, the selection which we are presenting is the result of a lengthy and rigorous screening process. In only 20 of 150 test samples which [were] deformed or transformed in front of us or our collaborators, could we positively confirm the “abnormal” nature of the effects observed. In this report, we will describe eight of the most important cases. It must be pointed out that a majority of the tests which were eliminated were most certainly valid. We used a very strict screening process in eliminating the demonstrations which did not follow a pre-defined protocol. Other tests with extensometric gauges will be published later.

Thus, our concern for rigor led us to eliminate some rather remarkable observations concerning deformations at a distance, deformations of objects or test samples in the hands of observers who were above any suspicion, or those held on one side by J.P. Girard and on the other by an observer. The tests which will be described were conducted under our responsibility with the authorization of Pechiney-Ugine-Kuhlmann.”

This is the forward to the definitive report, published and prepared by the Eyring Research Institute, accompanied by extensive film footage taken under rigorously controlled conditions, which describes the use of human consciousness alone to deform, transform and exert other measurable effects on both metallic and non-metallic substances, at a distance. While portions of the study remain classified, the report referred to here has never been classified by the United States Government. Our thanks to David Faust for providing this publicly available information.

[xvii] Radin, D., The Conscious universe, ref.
[xviii] Ref. Bearden etal
[xix] Ref. Bohm etal implicate order, Goedel’s inequalty principle
[xx] ibid Gisin/ CERN
[xxi] V. Poponin, “Phantom DNA Effects,” ref.
[xxii] Ref. Plotnikov – the physics of gravity
[xxiii] Anastasovski etal, quantum gravitational effects, geometricized field forces
[xxiv] Gisin, ibid. Nimtz, ibid. Wang, ibid. Hodowanec, ibid.
[xxv] The newest study was led by Roberto Ragazzoni of the Astrophysical Observatory of Arcetri, Italy and the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg, Germany. Ragazzoni told SPACE.com the expected quantum effect is like a subtle version of the blurring caused by Earth’s atmosphere, which makes stars twinkle.
[xxvi] Ref. Ragazzoni article
[xxvii] Ref. Lieu etal
[xxviii] Ref. Plotnikov – the physics of gravity
[xxix] Observed variations in C, ref’s. Also, reduction of C to 40 mph at Cal Tech, ref.
[xxx] mitigation of B field effects, ref’s.
[xxxi] Soviet M-2 experiments, ref. Nimtz experiments, ref. Wang etal, Princeton, ref’s. Hodowanec gravimetric sensors, ref.
[xxxii] Aspect, Wheeler, Drexler Univ., ref’s
[xxxiii] Anastasovski etal, quantum gravitational effects, geometricized field forces