One Reality of Universe within Universe
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | One Reality of Universe within Universe |
| Read in full | Link to paper |
| Author(s) | Satya Pal Asija |
| Keywords | One reality universe |
| Published | 2012 |
| No. of pages | 38 |
Read the full paper here
Abstract
This paper and concomitant presentation comprise a Systems View of One Reality of the Universe (FTPRDNBU) within Universe (IEVACXUU) delineating its Size, Structure and Soul and Our Special Status on the Privileged Planet. It builds upon a previously presented and published paper at an NPA forum by the author with a similar title [1]. As this title implies, it is based on the premise that there is only one reality in-here and out-there notwithstanding multitudes of perceptions thereof. Accordingly problems in theory and practice of sciences cannot be solved without solving the problems in theory and practice of spirituality and vice versa. It includes sound-bites, a potpourri of One Reality NOW (Nuggets of Wisdom), TPM (This Probably Means) corrections and questions. There are no taboo topics or sacred cows. One Reality ignores man made boundaries of knowledge domains or credentials of the originator of a particular perception of reality. Any contradictions are purged from One Reality by employing familiar mathematical techniques such as LCM (Lowest Common Multiple) and HCF (Highest Common Factor) amongst others. No problem is an island. The problems of science cannot be solved without solving problems of spirituality and vice versa. No problem can be solved in isolation. The author supports his position by examples from a wide range and variety of sciences and spirituality. The only chance for solving the 'One Reality' jigsaw puzzle is by sharing the pieces of the puzzle from all sources & knowledge-domains of 'But ONE Reality'. Since this paper makes extraordinary claims, it concludes with ideas for obtaining extraordinary evidence as agenda for my peers and posterity. In the meantime this is my two cents worth of paper-trail.
Overview
Asija — a patent attorney by profession, writing from Shelton, Connecticut — offers what he calls "A Systems View of One Reality", a single framework meant to hold cosmology, particle physics, gravitation, sleep research and Christian theology at once. The organising claim is stated in the first paragraph: there is only one reality "in-here and out-there notwithstanding multitudes of perceptions thereof", and therefore "problems in theory and practice of sciences cannot be solved without solving the problems in theory and practice of spirituality and vice versa." The paper integrates half a dozen of his earlier NPA papers, including Universe within Universe (2005) and Instant Gravity and Real Time Astronomy in a Real Time Universe (2010).
The structure that carries the argument is a nested pair of universes, given the two acronyms that recur throughout. FTPRDNBU is the Finite, Temporal, Physical, Relative, Digital, eNtropic, Firmament-Bound Universe — the observable world, housed in a "firmament" sphere of radius 1040 metres with a mirror-image sub-metre scale extending down to 10−40 m. IEVACXUU is the Infinite, Eternal, Virtual, Absolute, Continuous, eXtropic, Firmament-Free Universe — the uncreated superset, of which the bounded universe is "a negligible subset". Where the mainstream account treats the observable universe as a region of a possibly infinite manifold with no boundary and no privileged location, Asija asserts a literal, finite, impenetrable shell; where the mainstream treats the Copernican principle as foundational, he argues for a "Privileged Planet" and for a universe that is "concurrently geo and heliocentric". The paper is written in a deliberately informal register — the author calls his own contributions "my two cents worth of paper-trail" — and closes not with results but with an agenda for "extraordinary evidence" he concedes he has not got.
The scheme
Vocabulary and the two universes
Asija front-loads seventy-five acronyms and definitions, several of which redefine standard terms. Mass is "the unit-less sum of (all protons electrons and neutrons) of all the atoms"; weight alone carries units of force. Time is "distance traversed divided by speed or velocity of a body in motion". Gravity is "the equal and opposite reaction to any and all uncompensated orbital (hybrid linear and angular) acceleration, however caused, in three orthogonal frames of references". Energy is called "ineffable like infinity and Nihility... Intangible sources of forces". He coins Nihility for absolute zero as distinct from the infinitesimal, eXtropy as a non-oxymoronic antonym of entropy, and UVLM (Universal Virtual Light Medium), explicitly "not to be confused with aether", for a light that does not refract, reflect, scatter or lase.
The seal of the Creator and the identity 0 = ∞
A section titled "Seal of the Creator" presents the repeating decimal sequences 123456789(R) and .123456789(R) as the Creator's supra-metre and sub-metre "signature", reciprocal and mirror images of one another. Asija lists numerical coincidences he takes as its appearance in nature: the Earth's speed of 370.370(3R) km/s toward Leo, the 38.4 µs/day GPS clock correction, a Big Bang age he insists is 137 billion rather than 13.7 giga-years, the golden ratio identities φ = (√5 + 1)/2 = 1.618033989 and 1/φ = 0.618033989, Euler's eiπ + 1 = 0, Mersenne primes, and the Fibonacci sequence.
He then gives a "sixth proof" that Nihility equals Infinity, following five in an earlier NPA paper. The derivation runs from Na × N−a = 1, substituting a = infinity to get Infinity × Nihility = 1, then substituting 1/0 for infinity to conclude that "unity of zero and infinity terminates into one." Commutation is invoked to show the reverse ordering gives the same result.
Size and structure: eight ranges and four speeds of light
The bounded universe is divided into eight logarithmic ranges. Above ground zero: the Solar System range (100–1011.1 m), the Milky Way range (to 1022.2 m), the Virgo range (to 1033.3 m) and an "Unobserved" range to 1038.8 m, with the remainder to 1040 m reserved as "margin of safety". Below it: nano (100–10−10 m), sub-nano (to 10−20 m), zepto (to 10−30 m) and nanozepto (to 10−40 m). Asija illustrates the nesting with a Ping Pong ball (solar system and Milky Way), a Tennis Ball (adding Virgo) and a Basket Ball (all observed and unobserved matter), and with the Greek Ouroboros whose tail is 10−40 and mouth 1040.
Each range is assigned its own speed limit. Supra-metre: C1 = 3 × 108 m/s, C2 = 0.1 × 1015 m/s, C3 = 0.0411 × 1021 m/s, C4 = 0.0152 × 1027 m/s. Sub-metre: C−1 = 3.3(R) × 10−9, C−2 = 9.0(R) × 10−15, C−3 = 24.3 × 10−21, C−4 = 65.609973 × 10−27 m/s. The organising constraint is that each conjugate pair multiplies to unity: C1C−1 = C2C−2 = 1, and likewise the two firmament volumes 4.18(R) × 10120 m³ and 0.2387 × 10−120 m³ multiply to 1.
Gravity from motion in three orthogonal frames
Asija's gravitational proposal inverts the usual causal order: "the ultimate cause of gravity is motion and not the other way around." Uniform gravity on Earth is produced by the combined effect of three orbital accelerations in mutually perpendicular planes, each fed back to the Earth: (i) the Earth about the Sun in the plane of the planets; (ii) the Solar System about the Milky Way's black hole in a plane perpendicular to that; (iii) the Milky Way and local group about the Virgo cluster's black hole in the third orthogonal plane. He states two adequacy conditions any theory of gravity must meet — it must explain why Americans and Australians both feel upright, and it must be demonstrable at small scale or in ordinary experience — and appeals to the one-dimensional "manual local limited gravity" felt when accelerating or braking a car as the everyday analogue.
He credits Isaac Newton warmly ("I don't know what gravity is but here is how you can calculate it") and claims that but for "two mistakes in the first law of motion", Newton would have found the cause of gravity himself; under Asija's "This Probably Means" method, Newton's uniform motion should be read as straight-line acceleration and at rest as at relative rest with respect to earth.
The four-level atom and the soul
The sub-metre ranges are given a psychological and eschatological interpretation. Level IV (nano) is the body and brain discarded at death; Level III (sub-nano, up and down quarks, electron, electron neutrino) is the body and brain that survives death; Level II (zepto, charm and strange quarks, muon, muon neutrino) is mind and soul; Level I (nanozepto, top and bottom quarks, tau, tau neutrino) is spirit and intelligence. Antiparticles are recast as "destructive partner counterparts" of the "escort partner" neutrinos, and Asija coins Posimu and Positau by analogy with the positron. The same four-level scheme then organises an eighteen-stage extension of the conventional four-stage sleep model, running from "life before life" and gestation through the classical REM and slow-wave stages — each assigned a dimensional transformation, 3D to 2D to 1D to dimensionless — to out-of-body experience, persistent vegetative state, death, post-death visits, reincarnation and resurrection.
Dark matter, dark energy, and relativity
Asija computes baryonic matter as 0.5% of the firmament volume in each of the supra- and sub-metre scales, plus 4.5% at nano scale, with 22.5% dark matter and 72.5% dark energy in the range 10−10 to 10−40 m; doubling to combine the two scales gives 1 + 9 + 45 + 145 = 200%, "which accounts for 100% of space in each range." On relativity he holds that special relativity is "conceptually correct" but that Einstein "got a couple of things backwards": there should be mass reduction rather than mass increase and time contraction rather than time dilation, so that the travelling twin would age more. He offers the GPS clock budget as "proof positive", noting that the velocity correction of 45.6687 µs/day along the circumference equals 2π × 7.2685 µs/day, the gravitational correction along the radius, with the difference 38.4002 µs/day being the applied offset.
Assessment
There are things in this paper that deserve to be taken seriously as ambitions even if not as results. The systems argument — that a problem cannot be optimised piecemeal, and that errors in any one domain propagate into the others — is a real methodological point, and Asija's insistence that "the source of all errors is limitations of the human faculties quite independent of the knowledge domains" is a defensible epistemology. His "3P8S" taxonomy of error sources (faulty perception, processing and presentation, compounded by sensory limits) is an unusually explicit acknowledgement of fallibility by an author making very large claims, and the closing section frankly concedes that the paper's assertions are "extraordinary claims... which need and deserve to be supported by extraordinary evidence" he cannot presently supply. He is also generous rather than dismissive toward Newton, Einstein, Darwin and NASA, arguing that "their contributions far exceed any errors or shortcomings". That posture is rarer in this literature than it should be.
The difficulties, however, are fundamental rather than reparable in detail. The central mathematical result is not a proof. The step from NaN−a = 1 to "Infinity × Nihility = 1" substitutes a non-number into an identity valid only for numbers; the further substitution of 1/0 for infinity assumes the very thing at issue. Standard analysis treats 0 × ∞ as an indeterminate form precisely because different limiting processes give different answers — x · (1/x) → 1, but x · (1/x2) → ∞ and x2 · (1/x) → 0 — so the expression has no single value to prove. The same pattern recurs in the numerology: the identities C1C−1 = 1 and volume × volume = 1 are dimensionally inconsistent, multiplying quantities in m/s and m³ and reporting a pure number. The dark-matter arithmetic openly sums to 200% and then declares that this "accounts for 100%", which is an unresolved contradiction in the paper's own numbers rather than a subtlety.
Several claims collide directly with measurement. The four range-dependent light speeds have no observational support and conflict with the constancy tested by the Kennedy–Thorndike and modern optical-cavity experiments, which bound directional and velocity-dependent variation of c at the level of parts in 1017. The proposed reversal of time dilation into time contraction is contradicted by the Hafele–Keating flying-clock results and, far more sharply, by the measured lifetimes of relativistic muons — atmospheric muons reach sea level only because their decay clocks run slow in the Earth frame, and storage-ring muons at CERN showed lifetime dilation by the predicted factor to better than 0.1%. Asija's own GPS example in fact tells against him: the relativistic offset is applied because satellite clocks run fast relative to ground clocks, exactly as general relativity predicts, and his arithmetic identity 45.6687 = 2π × 7.2685 is a numerical coincidence between two independently derived corrections rather than a derivation of either. The four-level atom assigns charm, strange, top and bottom quarks to distinct spatial shells of 10−20 to 10−40 m, but the heavy quarks are produced in and confined to ordinary hadrons at the ~10−15 m scale, and their masses and decay widths are measured; nothing in the collider data supports a spatial stratification by generation. The insistence on 137 billion rather than 13.7 billion years for the age of the universe is likewise a factor-of-ten departure from the figure fixed by the Planck and WMAP measurements of the cosmic microwave background, and Asija offers no alternative fit to that data.
More basically, the paper's method makes it very hard to test. Terms are redefined at the outset in ways that do not connect to the operational definitions used in the measurements being challenged — a unit-less mass cannot enter F = ma, and a gravity defined as "the equal and opposite reaction to... orbital acceleration, however caused" does not predict a force law, a value for G, or the inverse-square dependence that Cavendish-type torsion balances measure directly in the laboratory. The three-orthogonal-motion account also does not address why gravity varies with local mass — why a mountain deflects a plumb line, why the Moon raises tides, why g differs measurably between the poles and the equator — since none of those depend on the galactic or Virgo motions the account invokes. Finally, the "This Probably Means" device, which permits Newton's and Einstein's words to be reinterpreted into their opposites, removes the possibility of a text or a theory disagreeing with the author.
Read as what it is — a synoptic personal cosmology, offered explicitly as one man's "perception of one reality which is no better than anybody else's" and submitted for review by "my peers and posterity" — the paper is coherent in its own terms and honest about its status. Read as a physical theory it does not yet make contact with the measurements it would need to displace.