18 March, 2019

Issue 64: The Holistic Universe

In this bumper edition we collect together the most important cosmological writings of Marxist philosopher and physicist, Jim Schofield: his work on the nature of the Universe.

In his ongoing application of Dialectical Materialism to the many disciplines of science, Jim has increasingly turned to Holism as the answer to the persistent crisis in Physics. But this ancient philosophical stance isn’t what most people think of when they hear the term “holistic” science.

Reclaiming Holism

Much like the rampant misuse of the word “quantum” by quacks and snake oil salesman the world over, the word “holistic” has been dragged through the dirt for several decades, becoming synonymous with the worst kind of pseudoscientific drivel, in the minds of many scientists, and in the popular consciousness too, particualrly when it is applied to the field of medicine.

For the team at SHAPE Journal, it is high time this vital word was reclaimed for those who use it deadly seriously. While holism is often used as an exuse by some to abandon analysis and scientific rigour in favour of some questionable belief system - the rational always subtended by the spiritual - the philosophical concept itself, implies no such thing.

The dictionary definition of the term doesn’t suggest this either.

Holistic is posited as the antonym of ‘atomistic’, as the study of wholes rather than parts, or an acknowledgment that parts cannot be understood without reference to the whole (and vice versa), that contexts and the changing relations between entities, are as important as the entities themselves. That holism is oppositional to reductionism doesn’t entail an abandonment of analysis, but a crucial acknowledgment of what analysis actually is; the limitations of all analyses and the necessity for examining the real material contexts in which any findings occur.

To really understand what Holism is, it is important to understand it in terms of its opposite, the currently dominant Priniciple of Plurality, and Jim spends much time explicating the differences between these two philosophical approaches. As he states in What is Holism:

“Plurality saw Reality as being determined by a set of eternal Natural Laws, which simply summed in various mixes and proportions to deliver everything that there is. The task of studying Reality (in all its diverse forms), therefore, had to be to reveal what these Laws were, and any means that could be used to reveal them more clearly was considered a legitimate method for finding such clearly defining things. For, as they were eternal, they could not be changed by context. So, if the context was significantly adjusted to most clearly display a given Law, that would in no way change the sought-for Law. Context would still determine what was seen normally, but merely due to the summing of a set of eternal laws in a given set of proportions.”

This is contrasted with Holism in the same paper:

“This was most carefully defined by The Buddha in India, about the same time as Plurality was being revealed in Greece. And, in a nutshell, it was defined as, “Everything affects everything else” or alternatively as, “Everything is always in constant change!” You can see how very different this premise made the process of understanding Reality. Instead of the pluralist assumption of the addition of FIXED things, there was instead the holist assumption of the mutually-affecting combination of easily changeable and hence constantly CHANGING components.”

Holism is most vitally different in how it sees time rather than space - it’s not just about looking at wholes rather than parts, but looking at changing properties over the assumption and manipulation of fixed laws that we see in all the sciences. Hopefully you can begin to see the relevance of this to Dialectical Materialism and to our understanding of the evolution of the Universe.

The tendency in Physics is to assume the laws that control the Universe have always been the same, but there is no evidential reason to assume this - the flaw is an unspoken philosophical assumption - and it has lead to a very skewed view of Cosmology.

This set of essays begins the task of looking at the Universe and its history holistically - the Universe as an interconnected and evolving Everything.

Mick Schofield
SHAPE Editor

16 March, 2019

The Casimir Effect and Substrate Theory

Explaining "vacuum fluctuations" without quantum field theory

"Any medium supporting oscillations has an analogue of the Casimir effect. For example, beads on a string[3][4] as well as plates submerged in noisy water[5] or gas[6] illustrate the Casimir force" 

(my italics)

The quotation above is significant, even if it is just from Wikipedia! It allows us to consider a very different explanation to the consensus one usually adopted for the actual Casimir Effect, and it allows us to compare them.

The Casimir Effect (between two conducting plates in a vacuum) presents an excellent phenomenon for contrasting Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory with a new alternative account, suggesting the effects of an undetectable Universal Substrate composed of units consisting of mutually-orbiting pairs of Leptons (Substrate Theory) which replicates the idea in the quote in the exact circumstances of the actual Casimir Effect.

Clearly, that quote makes such a comparison absolutely necessary, for it immediately suggests an undetectable medium (though extremely fine-structured perhaps) as potentially delivering exactly what we observe, rather than QTís disembodied ìvaccuum fluctuationsî.

If composed of appropriate Leptons, these joint-units could be completely undetectable (cancelling-out all observable effects), while delivering the necessary properties of such a medium, and possibly also being capable of the propagation of electromagnetic energy, and fluctuations required to deliver the observed Casimir Force.

Such an invisible and connected medium has been fully theoreised by this researcher - termed a Paving and formed from Neutritrons (units composed of the mutual-orbiting of two Leptons - one Electron and one Positron) it presented significant suggestions that, in spite of the neutrality of such joint-units overall, that they could on very-close-approach, produce an affecting oscillating effect of alternating attractions and repulsions created-entirely due to cross-influences between the sub-units in different adjacent Neutritrons, which would loosely-link the joint-units together, to form that Paving, with the involved overall units constantly oscillating about equally spaced positions, and thus enabling a means of EM propagation, due to the demotion of energy from the orbit of one unit, and its promtion to the orbit within the next, immediately adjacent unit, thus delivering a bucket-brigade-transfer, and consequently propagating a quantum of energy, at a fixed speed - giving us C.

A Neutritron

Now, if such an undetectable Substrate permeated the universe, especially as it is composed of oscillating units, it could also be a real alternative to the so-called Quantum Field of empty space. It would, for example, be capable not only of propagating energy, but also of holding and delivering it in appropriately conducive contexts. And the point about the Paving also shows how at tiny separations similar linkages with the orbiting-electrons and relatively static nuclei in the atoms of a sheets of conducting material, would also be possible in the same sort of way.

Now before the vast majority of Physics academics succumb to damaging heart attacks, may I inform them of the alternative explanation of Quantized Electron orbits in atoms?

As soon as even the remote possibility of an undetectable Universal Substrate was suggested, its necessary composition and consequent properties were required. Particularly as the sole composition by Neutritrons had already been able to remove every single one of the anomalies of the full set of Double Slit Experiments, without any recourse whatsoever to the Copenhagen Interpretaion of Quantum Theory.

And, an extension of the Theory of the Universal Substrate composed only of Neutritrons immediately revealed that the devised Paving was by no means a stable form. For fairly low applied energies would dissociate the Paving into individual units, and they could either thereafter act like a released random gas, or be driven by moving energetic interlopers into streams, or even into vortices, and though forms like the latter would usually be temporary - that would not be the case when caused by orbiting Electrons - for the orbits would cause the Electrons to constantly traverse the very-same-route, so the Vortices could be maintained by the returning electrons. And, remarkably, energy could also be passed back to the orbiting electrons by these vortices! For the overall energy available, only certain orbits would be possible: a physical explanation for quantization.

It soon became clear that if appropriate different extra Substrate Units were available, Electrical, Magnetic and even Gravitational fields could all be features of a heterogeneous Substrate. After all, it would explain why the supposed causes of the Fields were never diminished by the energetic actions of those Fields.

Magnetons theorised as part of the Substrate

The required new units appeared to also be possible as mutually orbiting pairs of Leptons, but now with differently sized components, so that Magnetic Dipole Moments would be unavoidable. And the involved Units could both propagate and indeed subtend actual Fields, due to retained energy in the Unitsí internal orbits.

Even the required undetectability could be achieved by equal numbers of mirror-image joint units, which as a ìrandom gasî would be undetectable, but as statically formed areas, associated with their initiators, could easly subtend the appropriate Fields.

Read the rest of this paper on ResearchGate

14 March, 2019

SHAPE blog 1 year old today!

This was our first ever post in March 2009. Expect further celebrations and special issues as we approach the 10 year anniversary of our first issue of SHAPE Journal.

 Once my new website "E Journal" is up and running, I'll post up here the latest news, papers and articles etc. I will also add anything that I think may be of interest to E Journal's readers...

08 March, 2019

Who is to Blame?

Billionaires. Whether we blame them directly, or the system that creates them, they still have to go....

Who do we immediately identify as the perpetrators for our despair?

On studying the evolution of Capitalist Economics today - some 140 years after Karl Marx's magnificent effort to explain it ended with his death - the many major crises, the World Wars and the increasing acceleration of mounting state and personal debt, have elicited various (although always temporary) "solutions", that simply defer, but never solve, the ever-mounting problems with the economy. And these "solutions" constantly construct innumerable extra barriers to ordinary Workers being able to see any kind of solution of their own!

And, the protectors of that System, have compounded the felony, with their Divide-and-Rule policies, involving their loudly apportioning blame to some different, and hence easily-identified, section of the population, as well as diverting the problem, again purely temporarily, by facilitating a vast increase in the Debt Mountain, to finance some kind of apparent alleviation.

In consequence, the real causes of these crises become ever more opaque and impenetrable, and an increasingly worried population begins to look round for identifiable culprits, which, in addition, to the everywhere identified "foreigners" which are blamed (use Brexit and Trump as case studies, if you must), they were also directed to other targets, much-closer-to-home, such as their own personal inadequaces, for example, or those of their spouses! For, a brief check upon the men of their extended family, by financially-harassed wives, could reveal the severely curtailed abilities of them all to provide what is needed for their respective families: "they become the problem, and are told so in no uncertain terms!"

Families are decomposing everywhere! But, in doing so, it only compounds the difficulties, multiplies the problems, and hides the real causes ever more effectively.

These problems are not due to the personal failings of workers. Ordinary people are not to blame.

In the past, the immediate causes-and-consequences used to be much more easily identified, and the solutions were equally obvious: workers were organised in Unions, and could act together in a Strike. In some circumstances a whole Industry could be involved, or even a nation-wide General Strike of all workers.

But successively, every Capitalist downturn was cleverly used by employers and their political allies, to dismantle, bit-by-bit, the power of the Unions, by both exporting jobs abroad, as well as bringing in various Anti-Union Laws, so that today, what jobs are available are low-paid and usually un-organisable by Unions.

The situation is rapidly becoming insurmountable economically.

And, the old ways of fighting against this exploitation no longer work. 

Even the British Labour Party, in spite of its current Left Wing Leadership (AND Party Membership) is being dismantled by the pro-Capitalist Labour MPs in Parliament, who increasingly side with the Tories against their own movement.

The only old way left is agitation in the streets!

Bring the People out in Mass Demonstrations - BUT crucially they must be well-armed with an understanding of what is really wrong, along with a supported programme to end it!

There will be very strong opposition to this but

WE are the MANY


THEY are the FEW

The time has come to go onto the streets

26 February, 2019

Generality, Particularity, Singularity

Performing Sculpture. Small Feathers, 1931, by Alexander Calder

Marx’s Abstractions

and Dialectical Developments

On further listening to David Harvey’s analysis of Marx’s Capital, it becomes important exactly what the necessary kinds of Abstraction are, that are actually being used.

Previously, when revealing the significant and transforming content of the Greek Intellectual Revolution, somewhat earlier in these investigations, the key achievement turned out to be in the wholly new kind of Abstraction that they had developed in their study of shapes, but which, at that time, had also enabled the development of the very first intellectual discipline - Mathematics.

So, once again, within this current discussion on Marx’s Capital, it has to be the kinds-of-abstraction used, as well as both when, and to what extent, they can be effectively employed, that are the most important questions.

Now, Marx wasn’t a scientist, he was a philosopher and historian - and neither is David Harvey, who is a geographer by trade: so neither of them were intimately familiar with the methods and abstractions of ‘hard’ sciences such as Physics, or even their associated disciplines, such as Mathematics. So, they would not be immediately aware of the unavoidable limitations of idealistic Mathematics - for their focussings were very different in their own primary disciplines.

Now, Marx crucially talks about Generalities, Particularities and Singularities as the abstractions concerned with the Laws of Motion of Capital, and how he sees and uses them, turns out to be crucial, and also very revealing when related to their somewhat different uses in Science and Mathematics.

So, once again, I am pressed to use my analogue regarding Multiple-Chemical-Processes, to clarify what is involved. For there, though many active factors are involved (all acting simultaneously), the most frequently naturally- achieved Stability, in this type of system, will always be in an achieved persisting balance between all of these processes, characterised by a certain Dominance, as the apparent underlying determining “Law” of the situation.

And, that would be what Marx calls the Generality of the situation.

But, the other factors involved will vary, and though they cannot dislodge this Dominant Law, they can move it about - somewhat!

They would be the contingent Particularities of the situation.

Finally, something could happen which completely terminates the situation: so this Law ceases to apply!

That would be due to a Singularity of the situation. These are key Abstractions from the situation with different properties and effects.

Now these are necessarily considered somewhat differently in their varieties of use: and though my explanations, that lead to these differences, arise from my always-holistic stance, it is important to note that many other widely current uses, even in Science, are wholly pluralistic in their determining, underlying stance, and hence differ significantly! That is, they take all the laws involved as permanently fixed.

So, Marx’s strictly holistic methods will never be considered by those usually employing entirely pluralist methods - like the majority of both scientists and logicians for example.

Now, in any such, many-law, holistic context, as with both my favoured chemical analogue, and also the ones involved in Capitalist Economics, the simultaneously-acting laws will most certainly NOT interact pluraliatically, for then all would be of the exact same type. Indeed, within holism there will usually be a Generality - delivering the underlying fundamental Law, determined as such by the overall, dominating conditions, but always also (potentially) modified by a whole series of Particularities; which can adjust and vary the Generality. While there will always be, in addition, one or more Singularities, which can, in appropriate circumstances, terminate the Generality completely, by changing the underlying situation. And, there will be different reasons, which causally-determine all these natures, and their roles, in a given situation.

Once again, my revealing analogue can be used to expose all their various determining causes. In that case, the Generality will be described by the basic underlying Law, itself, caused by the relative abundance of its major required resource, more often than not, determined by the circumstances in which it occurs. While, the various Particularities, will never challenge that objective dominance, but could modify it contingently to some extent. Finally, the Singularities are totally independant influences, sometimes from without, that cancel the dominance of the Generality and facilitate its complete replacement.

NOTE: Now, the above constitutes only the briefest start in addressing such Holistic Changes and how we can deal with them, and, as we develop this discription, the significant differences and evident superiority to the consensus Pluralist Approach, will gradually, and excitingly, be revealed. For example, the conundrums and even impasses connected with Dichotomous Pairs of contradictory concepts will be fully explained - particularly via our revealing analogue, which will always include an opposite sub-dominant process, which, in certain circumstances replaces the prior Dominance, without significantly altering the overall Balance and Stability!

But, the very reason for the prior adoption of Plurality as the universal stance in investigating Reality, does have some sort of basis, in the evident relative predominance of long-persisting Stabilities within Reality: indeed Stabilities are frequent and persist for long periods, but can never deliver any significant Qualitative Change.

So, in spite of the always very short durations of Emergences, they are, nevertheles, the sole sources of all Development. And, the apparent “Truths” of Plurality are usually arranged-for, by artificially-constructing and actively-maintaining appropriate Stabilities, to ensure the possibility of applying such Pluralist Laws successfully.

But, of course, such a purely technological approach can never address any of the areas involving qualitative changes and their explanation - and these are evident in by far the widest ranging areas of study. Even Modern Physics and Cosmology have both been brought to existential crises by the limited pluralist appoach, and without a veritable revolution in these areas, they are effectively doomed as sources of Explanation for Reality. .

NOTE: It is interesting to consider Mathematical Singularities alongside Marx’s use of the term. The use of singularities in Mathematics means indisputedly that they are occurring wholly-within a legitimately pluralist context - namely Ideality. But, the infinities possible within Ideality, legitmises the positioning of a found “real” relation upon a graph of infinite possible extention, though for it is only a small locality within that graph, that maps onto a situation in Reality, and the rest of the space included in the graph necessarily constitutes what are, in that context, termed as Singularities - that is as aymptotes to Infinity, or swoops to Zero. They should just be the boundaries-of-Reality, but in idealist Modern Physics are instead suggested as portals to alternative Worlds!

Controller of the Universe, 2007, Damián Ortega

Singularities and Emergences

Now, of course, even the role of Singularities, as so far merely described, can never explain any consequent real development, but only individual qualitative changes: and where they lead is also never-supplied, at such a level of analysis.

What is actually needed is a causal-mechanism for “system-change”, wherein a mutually-affecting collection of many different, and even contradictory, processes actually dismantles the old order, and generates a wholly New System. And, such an event, has a name within this Holist View of Development: it is called an Emergence.

And, it is certainly not a mere fixed-causality, with a given single outcome at all! Indeed, it is not even a consistent, co-ordinating system of coherent, related processes, naturally coalescing into a consequent final outcome. It is, remarkably, a balancing system of contradictory factors, which ordinary Logic would see as merely inhibiting, or even cancelling, one another, and hence leading nowhere!

And, it should be clearly contrasted with such co- ordinated systems, whhich can never lead to real, entirely-original qualitative changes.

An Emergence is always a remarkable Event, which produces purely temporary Stabilities, which almost always involve the same self-restoring balance of contradictory factors, while displaying an apparently resultant Dominance (which, superficially, certainly looks like a pluralist law).

Now, this turns out to be a surprising entity, for though it appears to be, and usually is, a conservative arrangement, ensuring its Status Quo for long periods of time, it can, in certain circumstances, become undermined. And yet, though that cause undermines - in one area of the balance, it mostly restores the situation - in another area, to counter that undermining. Such a contradictory Stability, therefore, includes the wherewithal to correctingly deal with Crises most of the time.

But, if pushed too far, it not only precipitates a wholesale dissociation - a total Collapse - it also always delivers an unexpected outcome. The produced intermediate situation no longer perpetuates anything. New subsytems can now begin to come together, relatively unhindered - though many just as quickly dissociating again in their own Crises. But, finally they come together in a new balance of contradictory factors, which constitures yet another new Stability! And, that new system could never have been predicted from the prior Stability. This is how the Wholly New emerges!

But, how is the necessary variety first produced, and then maintained in any given context? The engine of our Solar System is clearly The Sun, but different parts of a planet, presenting different angles of incidence of the Sun’s Rays at its surface will receive different amounts of heat, and consequent differential heating of the local atmosphere, causing Winds and hence differential evaporation from any liquid water available in seas or lakes.

And as the planet spins, it will also at every point on its surface by alternately be illuminated, and then plunged into darkness, causing differences in heating over time!

So, already, just considering the ‘stable’ Sun and Earth, we get diverse conditions including precipitation and even worldwide small particle distibution, via moving winds. And the more things that are considered, the more variabilities are involved.

The point is, how do they co-exist in some maintained, or regularly repeatable mix? Clearly, conditions can vary enough to promote opposite processes in extreme situations, the results of which can be moved about by winds and currents. Yet, some planets in our Solar System do seem to exhibit restricted ranges of prpocesses, and continuing as such for seemingly vast periods of time. While others, like Earth, seem to be in relatively constant change: which appears to be largely due to Life.

And Life itself must have once been some kind of Emergence: what else could it have been?

So, why no evident Life elsewhere in the Solar System?

We can deal with a variety in conducive circumstances, but what triggers the crucial event that enables everything that can consequently emerge? Clearly, once we abandon the fictional simplicity of a Pluralist World, we find ourselves in a much more complex Reality, requiring a wholly new approach when attempting to understand it.


Clearly, there is still a great deal to yet be addressed, but I feel some brief foray into that waiting world should be addressed here, as a sample of what is to come.

Let us consider Causality!

For, our idea of Causality is significantly distorted by not only the premise of Plurality upon its nature, but also in the consequences of that stance for how we see, explain and use Causality.

The Principle of Plurality has all elements extracted from Reality as permanently-fixed: not only categories and concepts but also extracted Natural Laws too. And, consequently, our tools for dealing with these were obviously also “tailored-to-fit” such fixed entities and relations.

Primarily, if Plurality were true, it would be entirely valid to deliberately restrict, or even “farm” investigated situations to effectively isolate a given relation: for, if that relation were naturally eternal, our manipulations would never affect it: it would remain the same.

Also, we could never effectively use that relation, if we didn’t similarly simplify the context for use, as with “only one Law free to act”, we could easily apply it to achieve predictable ends. And any complex production would have-to-be organised as a series of productions, one for each pluralist Law evidently involved.

We would never attempt to apply them all simultaeously! Yet, of course, simultaneously, is exactly how Reality works with its “Laws”, when left to itself! So, because of our subscription to Plurality, we purposely prohibit, for ourselves, any knowledge whatsoever of how simultaneous “Laws” might actaully affect one another, or even follow particular natural sequences over time.

The natural selection of such sequences is NEVER available to us, as it must have been in totally unfettered Reality. Indeed, Plurality is NOT true in either Reality, or even in Reasoning. In fact, it is only true in Mathematics, because of its simplified relatable abstractions, on which it was constructed. But, they don’t form the abstractions upon which Reality and Reasoning are constructed!

So, in making Plurality the basis where it does not apply misleads what we can do with what we obtain by such means: and, in addition, limits the conditions we can apply them in to severely restricted and unnatural contexts.

This essay is taken from the latest issue of SHAPE Journal called Changing Dialectics

25 February, 2019

Special Issue 63: Changing Dialectics

Cover of SHAPE Journal Special Issue 63 art by Alexander Calder
Changing Dialectics by Jim Schofield

While the giant influence of Karl Marx’s ideas and methods cannot be questioned, his most crucial work remains unfinished. My research seeks to finish what Marx started and finally bring Dialectics to Science, revolutionising both disciplines.

In being able to make any sort of progress in Theory, however, we must never forget exactly who we are, and to what extent we are adequately equipped in this endeavour. And, most crucially of all, how we have to re-create our means intellectually-and-socially simultaneously, to make any real progress.

24 February, 2019

Slums and Skyscrapers

Very much enjoying David Harvey's work at the moment

18 February, 2019

Quantum Electro Dynamics via PBS Space Time

As is becoming a regular feature of my current theoretical work criticising The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, and its various contemporary developments, I turn first to the young presenters on the PBS SPACE TIME platform of explanatory videos on YouTube - because they do their very best to deliver the consensus theory, warts-and-all, in the clearest and most honest way they can - which is commendable.

They don't actually succeed in convincing me, of course, but they do allow the inquisitive viewer, such as myself, to extract at least some of the key premises involved, in order to attempt to establish a vital alternative to theirs, by revealing both their limitations, as well as, hopefully, defining-and-presenting a better, coherent and comprehensive alternative view.

Certain defining premises are immediately evident:

  • First, that a Description of what occurs is always the objective!

  • Second, that the means used will always be Mathematics!

  • Third, that its real test will always involve Predictions!

  • Finally, that Experiments will confirm their validity!

But, what do these seemingly sound premises actually infer?

  • Descriptions deliver the way things appear, but never "Why they are so?"

  • Mathematics delivers only Ideal(ised) Forms and is unavoidably wholly Pluralist!

  • Predictions deliver possible outcomes without any real Explanation.

  • Experiments always involve a purposely farmed-and-maintained context only.

But, all of these cannot deliver Reality-as-is, but only a tailor-made, subset context, with almost all "supposedly-inessential" things suppressed. And, for it to work, Reality itself would have to be totally pluralist - that is constructed solely of eternal Natural Laws, for such a method to reveal the true components.

And the proof of these criticisms? You have to replicate exactly the conditions of extraction to subsequently enable effective use of such Laws! And, Reality-as-is and totally un-tailored is always Holistic. So, predictions based upon pluralist laws are similarly compromised.

From the very inception of the disciplines involved in that approach, by the Ancient Greeks, flaws were already evident (see Zeno of Elea's Paradoxes), so a parallel and holistic set of Explanations involving Properties, Causes and Effects were also considered essential accompaniments to the purely formal relations.

NOTE:But while descriptions, equations and predictions were always locked together as absolutes, Explanations (being attempts at the Real), never enjoyed that unanimity, because they were never absolute: they were composed of current and temporary Objective Content, so were always being updated or improved, while the contents of the Pluralist extractions were always "absolute"!

So, as long as Understanding was not as important as Use, the pluralist monolith would continue to dominate science. BUT, crucially Pluralistic methods, unavoidably, also always involved Idealisation- for all the data from experiments were used to fit-up Ideal Formal Equations, taken from Pure Mathematics, but as those were, by no means a comprehensive data set: the formula's validity was NOT intrinsic to the whole causing situation, but limited to a defined range alone!

So, Idealism was also imported along with the Formula.

Can you guess what happened to the Mathematics involved, in response to ever wider use in Science?It had to develop enormously in order to continue that defined use value. But, never, it must be emphasized, in delivering an explanatory value! Mathematics can't do that! Unless, that is, you abandon Materialism for Idealism, and consequently believe that the World is the way that it is because of the Mathematics which drive it!

For then, a study of the Purely Formal World of Ideality becomes a study of the sole drivers of Reality.

Are you recognising Modern Physics yet?

Now, developing Mathematics, without in any way compromising its Plurality, which, remember, was what had given it its descriptive power from the outset, really meant doing something you can do in Ideality, which you cant do in Reality. And, that is extending it exponentially, while maintaining its premises absolutely!

This was such a significant turn, so that in my Diagram of the Processes and Productions of Abstraction, the realm of Ideality had to be situated outside-of Reality altogether, which correctly included everything else.

The processes and productions of Ideality were defined as never ever getting validated by references of it to Reality!

So much for the underlying premises, but what about the "Physical Theory" which purports to additionally deliver an explanatory narrative alongside the Mathematics?

Well, the presenter, in addressing the heart of Quantum Electro Dynamics, first presents the classical electro dynamical explanation, involving a spinning, charged ball, only to then, immediately, dismiss that because - "It isn't a ball and it isn't spinning". But, his alternative explanations are incredible!

He imports the old Greek simplification of treating the particle as a Point-of-zero-extension, totally forgetting why that simplifying fiction was so useful, and instead making it an accurate description of the physical world: it isn't!
And, he does all this, while he, at the same time, continues to talk about spinning and/or orbits. along with charges, in other parts of his explanations (very inconsistent). He excuses this contradictory stance by insisting that Sub Atomic Physics is actually A Different World entirely!

Nevertheless, he carries over, with the very same names, concepts from classical Physics like Angular Momentum, and Magnetic Dipole Moments - features from the Classical World, which there are due to extended entities and real spinning or orbiting.

Notice that the pluralist tail now wags the holist dog?

His reasons for abandoning physical explanations are the simplifying abstractions of Plurality which converted the real world into one which could be both manipulated and developed pragmatically - but elsewhere! There IS still a real world in there, currently obscured by Plurality, but definitely requiring a switch to Holism, as the only way to address it.

And, as they certainly wont do that, they have to somehow reflect the main features of a Holist World, within the premises of their Pluralist world - Ideality, but only at the Sub Atomic Level! Now, how can they possibly do that?

They will do it the only way they know how - by extending Mathematics, along with a new concept of the underlying nature of Space itself, which becomes the source of Everything!
Now, if the alternative of Holism is indeed correct, the above wont mean a thing, unless that alternative is thoroughly described and understood, in particular, via its very different mode of Qualitative Development - its Evolution!

Now, this is no small task, and certainly too big to effectively include within this short Review, so here I will limit myself to contrasting it with Plurality.

NOTE: Now, this major task had already begun in this theorist's Theory of Emergences, along with his Theory of the Double Slit Experiments, Truly Natural Selection, and his papers on Abstraction. Finally, the first instalment of the demolition of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory is already available as A New Approach to Science.


As distinct from Plurality, Holism does not see Reality as composed entirely of the various summations of multiple, strictly eternal Natural Laws- in other words, all aspects of Reality being produced by mere Complication, and thus legitimately-allowing the usual way we do experiments by targeting, via a selecting-simplification of the context, to a situation with only a particular single and "totally-unaffected" Law clearly evident!

For, instead, Holism takes the entirely-contrary view that all multiple, simultaneous laws always affect one another, to some greater or lesser extent, so that any apparent dominance, for whatever reason, is always only temporary, AND, crucially will be terminated when these cross-influences finally undermine the prior dominance, and a wholly different mix emerges following that former stability.

It explains switches between pertaining laws causally, whereas the best that Plurality can do is to merely switch due to some previously noticed threshold in a given parameter being passed, as yje switch occurred!

In addition, Holism sees the trajectory of Development of Reality qualitativelyin terms of periods of self-maintaining Stabilities, separated by turbulent Interludes of major Qualitative changes, termed Emergencesor Revolutions.

Finally, two things have had to be included in the pluralist Mathematics of Quantum Theory to somehowreflect:-

1. the holist simultaneous presence of multiple mutually-affecting factors, and

2. The presence of an undetectable Universal Substrate delivering propagation and much else within the supposed purely "Empty Space".

Now, Plurality is inadequately-equipped to deliver such things consistently: they neveroccur in a Pluralist World. So, "something-similar", in consequence, had to be devised-and-constructed, via a mix of illegitimate philosophical imports on the one hand, and a crypto-substrate on the other, termed a Field!

Now, such additions would seem to be impossible, but Mankind has been effectively using contradictory concepts for millennia, by means of the pragmatic tenet - "If it works, it is right!", so they couldn't be defeated by the Classical Opposition to Copenhagen, who had been using similar excuses for their own contradictory inclusions for even longer periods of time.

And, of course, they did have an almost infinitely extendible means, and the appropriate philosophic stance, to be able to construct, via a distorted, idealist Mathematics, the Ground to deliver what was needed.

And it isn't by chance that at the heart of that frig was a use of the Wave Equations developed for use in physical media, but here applied to their non-material Field!

And, in addition, illegitimately-modified to deliver not positions (as in the prior use), but merely a full set of probabilities of each and every possible position being possibly currently occupied!

Of course, such a method could never deliver the actual situation at any given moment, but could deliver over-time results, as with the Statistics it was borrowed from!

But, and this is crucial, without further frigs, this system still couldn't suffice - so ever deeper burrowing-into, and even further construction-of, an extended Ideality seemed absolutely necessary!

Feynman had found a purely abstract way, by developing his "Feynman Diagrams" to deliver the required results for each-and-every possible outcome in any given interaction within a Quantum Field, which could then be somehowsummed, over-all-possibilities, to give the actual outcomes. And, as more and more of these diagrams could be included to increase the accuracy of the result, computers had to be involved, which are now enormous, as they get results accurate to ten decimal places.

NOTE: But what are they ralking about?

What exactly are they summing: it is not only reminiscent of an extended Wave in a substrate, but even uses Wave Equations developed originally in those prior studies. And, nevertheless, it can be applied to an effect uypon an individual Particle!

Now, as usual, the presenter does his best to describe all of this, but without causal explanations, what he does, at best, is to also deliver an "accompanying narrative" to what has been found to pragmatically give accurate results.

But, it does imply an extended activity underlying phenomena which he infers is due to Wave/Particle Duality, but which I explain by the presence of an underlying and undetectable Universal Substrate - containing and delivering, by various kinds of propagation, the means to produce the actual physical effects, which are distortedly-reflected by their pluralist, simplified and idealised formal analogues of the Copenhagenist interpretation!

There are many problems with the kind of criticism I am forced to make, because it is never allowed to be a contention between two alternative explanations. For, where I, as a scientist, have to deliver a coherent, consistent and comprehensive explanation, tackling everything physically involved, the contrary position has only the rules of Abstract Mathematics, applied to an almost infinite body of researches in Ideality, PLUS a confusing collection of extractions by pluralist physicists, AND a pragmatic principle that supersedes everything else, namely - "If it works, it is right!"

For, that illegitimate unifier, effectively smoothes-over the impasses and contradictions - "to be dealt with later, when we know enough!" In other words, a pragmatic and useable path through the situation supersedes ALL explanations!

And, their philosophic basis stands out clearly - all explanations are invention anyway!

The essences of reality are purely formal!

The only stance is Idealism!

And, one particular consequent method has to be exposed.

It is to take legitimate spatially distributed and multiple effects, but apply them to a specific locality.

Now, you can do this with the effects of overlapping fields upon a particular location, but they don't have such here. Nevertheless, they are summing multiple influences at a particular location. supposedly due to a summed-over-time(?) oscillating effect at that location.

Remember, these contortions are absolutely necessary, because they are NO LONGER dealing with Reality, but the simplified and idealised, pluralist realm of Ideality.

Interestingly, I, with my Reality-based alternative approach, can legitimately use summations at a specific location due to overlapping, different Fields, all propagating within a Universal Substrate, and it also allows that summation to deliver a vector sum of the differing directions, of the contributing fields, to change the orientation of the Magnetic Dipole Moment in that precise unit of the Substrate.

More to come...

You can see the referenced videos here:

04 February, 2019

The Coming Slump! What has to be Done?

Is the Left suitably equipped?

The pro-capitalist economists, when asked about the current worsening situation, are up-in-arms - they just don't know what has to be done!

Some are even referring-back to the result of the Great Depression of 1929-1941, a World War, as the only way to stop the alternative: Social Revolution!

Yet, the First World War didn't stop the Revolution in Russia! It probably enabled it.

The consensus among the group of economists involved in this set of interviews, varied from making the People pay for it all by a "new kind of inflation", to a cancelling of State Debts via a World War with creditor nations!

But, of course, no-one asked the People.

And where is the solution of the Left?

What is delivered currently the UK is a long, slow rebuilding to what they already have in Europe, with Socialist and Communist Parties and a Trades Union Movement. But, that is certainly no better than the current reaction directly from the People, which has been the Yellow Vest Protests in France.

But nothing yet from Revolutionaries!

Capitalism is finished: and if we don't bury-it-deep, it will pull us all down with it, into another Dark Age, if not something worse.

The rulers of the Capitalist powers have Nuclear Weapons, and the means to deliver them. And they are the only people to have ever used them before - in Japan!

Much as I am in favour of democracy in the workplace, I'm afraid Worker Co-ops are nowhere near enough to counter Capital's downward spiral. The Super-rich will have to be separated from their Wealth-and-Power! And, any threat of that, will cause them to turn, once again, to Fascism to restore the situation. This is what Fascism is for.

Do you doubt it?

Mass actions will be necessary - BUT of the order of The Yellow Jackets TIMES 100!

New political parties will be necessary, for the likes of the Blairites in the British Labour Party cannot be trusted. And both the Republicans and the Democrats in the USA are hopelessly tied to their funding by the Rich who are causing this mess.

The Left must organise into political Parties committed to terminating Capitalism and establishing Socialism by Revolutionary Means.

Be prepared to defend your streets, your families and your comrades against the mounting forces of the Right! For they will come.



When the USA says it wants to see Democracy in Venezuela,
what do they really mean, and what is their real intention?

What are Real Democracy's necessary prerequisites and how is it subverted?

The usual call from the Powers-That-Be, in the rich Capitalist countries of the West, is for the "deprived nations" to be converted to "Democracy" (by force if necessary) as a solution to all their problems!

What? All by itself? And just by suggesting it?

"No, of course not: they will need guidance from US. We would send people in to help!"

What "people"? Soldiers with guns?

"Well occasionally, yes... There will be opponents to Democracy"

You should recognise the programme by now!

They have been "helping" in this way for some time... in Korea, then Vietnam, and latterly in many parts of Latin America, not to mention Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Yemen and many others. Will Venezuela be next?

Democracy protests in Venezuela

Can Democracy really be instituted this way?

Emphatically NOT!

Real democracy has to be an authentic bottom-up struggle of the people against the rule of rich and powerful individuals and cliques. For if the powerful remain in place, the resulting "Democracy" will always be a fake - indeed a DeMOCKracy, often worse than the system that preceded the regime change.

And what above all other factors prevents Real Democracy for forming? 

Concentrated Wealth and Power will always kill it STONE DEAD! 

So, all the means of establishing Wealth as an End-in-Itself must be made illegal, by a new democratic state! Inheritance of Wealth must be illegal too. While these unfair concentrations of power exist, the people cannot truly rule themselves.

All enterprises must become state-run services or grassroots worker cooperatives. And both Local and National Democratic Government must institute both full and regular information directly to the electors in public meetings, with an instituted instant recall, and immediate replacement of misbehaving / corrupt representatives.

Democracy means

Rule of the People, 

by the People


For the People

So, schemes instituted from above (or outside) are always intended to remove real democratic power.

27 January, 2019

Issue 63: The Dialectics of Natural Selection


This edition re-issues my work on Truly Natural Selection, on its 10 year anniversary, alongside some more recent contributions to this vital subject.

This series of papers extends Natural Selection beyond the Living World and into Reality in general.

It sees all “complication” not just as a summation of Parts, but as a necessary development of things, involving wholly new features, when it is usually, and correctly, renamed Evolution.

Where with Life we have the mechanisms of qualitative change as variation based on mutation, plus selection via competition, this more general form drives change via selection between competing chemical processes, and the significant transformation of context.

Fitness to survive, reproduce and prosper in the form which drives Evolution, is replaced in the more basic form by advantage to conducive, complementary processes and the successive transformation of the underlying situations entirely without Life being either present or necessary.

This view of Reality runs entirely counter to the famed Second Law of Thermodynamics, and therefore, requires physical explanation. We can do this in terms of context, whereas the Second Law is a product of interludes of maximally constrained stability, while competitive advances-in-order occur in quite different situations of unconstrained, maximum opportunity. And these alternating phases turn out to be the natural features of systems driven in cycles of any kind. The pattern of longer periods of relative stability, interspersed with short interludes of radical, qualitative change, is, in fact, the norm in the trajectories of such systems.

And the Key Events in these processes are the revolutionary episodes, which we call Emergences. Clearly, the most significant and undeniable of these has to be that which produced the very first Living Things. And this Event alone confirms that Selection in some form must have preceded Life! It was the source of Life on Earth.

Many important fallacies are addressed in these papers, including the usual mathematical definition of Probability, and its false use as a Cause of Life. And, most crucially, we address the concept of competition involving mutually conducive and mutually contending chemical processes, which are necessary for Selection in these circumstances.

The crux has to be the revolutionary Events called Emergences, which had clearly already occurred throughout the history of Reality, prior to the Emergence of Life, and which are generally ignored by most current Science.


Truly Natural Selection extrapolates Darwin’s Natural Selection backwards into non-living systems, and the competition between simultaneously acting processes, involving both the consumption of resources, and the generation of consequent products.

Such active systems would invariably transform their own bases, and rampant positive feedback situations would always dwindle as necessary resources were used up, while other processes could accelerate due to the adequate production of their resources by other processes. Now, apart from such relatively independent processes, there will always be other relations between simultaneous processes, all the way from necessary sequences of dependant processes to either mutually- supporting, conducive processes, and at the opposite extreme mutually-contending and opposing processes.

So, even in such non-living mixes, the processes would directly effect one another and a kind of competition would most certainly ensue. And along with these, there would also invariably be the ever-present, one-way, Second Law of Thermodynamics type processes which would seemingly prosper on a wide range of products and effectively parasitically benefit from all available productive processes.

These ideas, in a totally holist way, were developed to extend concepts originally thought to be confined only to the Evolution of Life, first to its actual Origin, and thereafter to the whole spectrum of developments that have occurred ever since the start of the Universe.

And these ideas finally became a cornerstone of my Theory of Emergences, and a new dialectical view of selection and change in nature.

25 January, 2019

Genes and Dialectics

Considering the currently-dominant reductionist methodology in the study of Genetics, it is crystal-clear that the same sort of drawbacks that are limiting current Sub Atomic Physics, will also restrict Genetics in similar ways.

Let us see what those ways are!

The first stance to emphasise, must involve an essential switch from Plurality to Holism, as it is clear that functional areas in a Genome are NOT merely, and or even solely, some fixed-blueprint for the construction-of, and the processes-for, that Living Organism, in the usual sense at all. For, if, I have it right, individual genes can not only influence functional processes elsewhere in the body of the organism, but also provide THE mechanism for the future Development of the whole collection of that species of organism, over successive generations. For it is THERE that the initiating changes take place!

And, the question, of course, must be "How?"

Now, to prepare to attempt to answer that question, I can only start by re-stating the alternative general Holist view of interactions. For, they naturally involve multiple, simultaneous and active factors, which, in most circumstances, do something akin to a Vector Sum, wherein individual directions are involved, as well as their more obvious contributing weights. In other words, you can get both support and/or contention from the various contributions to deliver an overall result - and that will not always be the same! Indeed, it will differ at various significant stages in a particular development.

Now, depending upon circumstances, some of these could selectively-cancel, leaving a dominant "summed" result - looking very similar to one of its components, or, surprisingly, something like that of its opposite.

Relevant studies by this author can be found on the pre-Life stages in Truly Natural Selection. These have just been re-published in the latest issue of SHAPE (63).

Issue 63 of SHAPE on Natural Selection

Both of these are cases of a Stability - maintained results, where small changes in one factor, are compensated for, by the very-same-causes, eliciting balancing (returning) changes in another opposing factor.

Now, the above ideas emerged when considering relatively simple dynamical situations, but can, and indeed must, be extended to processes and even to complex Systems.

This rich, living world is no Lego-build, as is assumed by Plurality! Looking at the building blocks alone will undoubtedly prove insufficient.

For example, if we start by considering chemical reactions (processes), the factors involved are, always, both more numerous and of qualitatively different kinds. Both resources and products are related in a given chemical processes. And, the product of one, can be a required resource for another. So, extended-linear-sequences, could be linked by products-as-resources into chains of processes. And even Cycles become possible where the End-Product of a linear sequence, becomes the necessary Resource of the first process in that same series.

So, apart from the simpler stabilities, these relatively self-resourcing cycles produce a very different kind of Stability indeed, which also can deliver a whole variety of secondary products, which have proved to be absolutely crucial in Living Things. Considering these more complex aggregations, there will regularly be both secondary required resources and consequent extra products, involving many of the successive links in such structures: and, consequently, intricate networks will result - all-of-which will be susceptible to changes in resource supplies, both overall and internally within the structures.

The problems of the usually applied pluralist approach are immediately evident. For, in ALL pluralist experimental set-ups, they are expressly designed to remove "all-but-one" of the involved factors, and then to promote the single remaining and isolated relation into an eternal Natural Law- always deemed to be totally independent of any of its contexts.

And, remember, these revelations were made when considering supposed "bottommost rungs" occurring in real world developments.

But, even these criticisms are nowhere near enough!

Mankind soon concentrated historically upon things that didn't seem to change qualitatively at all, as revealing the truly essential factors - it being their dominance that maintained things so well. We actually chose precisely those things, which effectively hid the crucial mechanisms of change, and consequently of Development too!

But, isn't the most important purpose of genes to deliver such developmental changes - so that, somehow, when a particular mutation of a gene becomes established, it, along with others, produces the advantageous change in the resulting organism that contributes to the dominance of that change by Natural Selection.

And, of course, the functions of the Genome will be far more complicated that the analogies called upon so far! For example, how does the Genome deliver its "instructions" - not only to the relevant tissues, but also internally, within the Genome itself? And, of course, exactly when do these processes take place?

Is it before conception in the gamete producing areas?

Is it after conception, but before the development of the new foetus?

Do many achieved unions get rejected very early on: do they get ejected regularly?

And, surely, many functions will only be activated later either during the pre-birth developments, or at particular times, post-birth, in the maturation, and even in the eventual decline, of the organism.

Now, the communication problem is solved in a remarkable way, for every single cell of the organism, contains a complete copy of the whole Genome, as well as a secondary set, held within its Mitochondria, so many necessary communications are present locally within the necessary cell.

But, at far more dispersed situations, actual communications had neither direct routes to follow, or even unique "addresses" to guide the message to the right place, so the "messages" were produced in abundance, and broadcast literally everywhere, via the bloodstream, which because they were sent everywhere, would indeed finally get to its intended target, where it would be recognised by finding its own mirror-image-shape to connect perfectly with, triggering its necessary function.

But, such mechanisms generated problems, when dispersed elements had, not only to be both located and activated, but also despatched to the right place, along with others similarly located and despatched, to arrive at the right time and place to deliver the necessary functions.

I have to say that much of what I see about this the on the web fails to address these problems, and instead expects to find all the answers with its ever growing database of Genomes, but with no detailed description of the mechanisms involved.

This brief paper can do no more, at this stage, than indicate what is missing from this Science, which clearly will require a veritable revolution in the necessary underlying philosophy, before the really crucial questions can be adequately addressed.

The dialectical door was found by Hegel, and we were led through it to materialism by Marx, but the crucial domain of Science has not been comprehensively addressed from this stance, and until it has, such wrong turnings, as are evident in areas like Genetics, will not be overcome.

20 January, 2019

The Ghosts in a Ghost Substrate

A Hauntograph by Michael C Coldwell
A Hauntograph by Michael C Coldwell

The following is a quote from an article in New Scientist (3205) called How a ghostly, forgotten particle could be the saviour of physics, and I extract it here long before the writer gets to revealing which particular particle she is telling us about. For they are indeed legion in the standard Copenhagen approach, and also because there is an alternative theoretical stance which has proved that it can cope very well indeed with such problems, but which is currently anathema in consensus Sub Atomic Physics.

"THIS is the story of a particle that has refused to die. For 50 years, it has haunted particle physics, with hints of its presence appearing in maddeningly ambiguous ways. Some believe they have seen it. Others think it is a figment of our imagination. But every time we think it is definitely not there, a sudden gust of wind knocks over the furniture and once more there is confusion." 

Ghosts in New Scientist 3205

 Now, the most fleeting of particles actually occur at the very heart of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, indeed they involve absolutely all-of-those included in the concept of Wave/Particle Duality, wherein such entities can sometimes act as classical Particles, while at others, act as if subject to their own intrinsic Wave, which somehow determines, but does not reveal, where they are!

The reason for such remarkable behaviour is never explained, but instead is "put down to" Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which makes the Sub Atomic Realm very different from the rest of Reality, by being totally indeterminate.

Yet, the suggested physical alternative to Copenhagen, achieves a general resolution of all its founding anomalies present in the ill-famed Double Slit Experiments, merely by including a Universal Substrate in the situations.

Though, it has to also be undetectable!

Now, I bring it up here, because just such an Undetectable Universal Substrate has been theoretically-defined, solely in terms of mutually-orbiting pairs of diametrically-opposite Leptons. And, several crucial Units of that Substrate involve the very Neutrinos that are considered in this article.

So, let us investigate exactly how the presence of just such a Substrate affects phenomena occurring within it.

For then, with such a Substrate, the Wave/Particle Duality construct of Copenhagen dissolves instead into a classical Particle interacting with the Substrate to produce Waves, which are then transformed by passing through the Slits and, thereafter, interfering with each other, to then affect the slow-moving, causing Particle, when it finally arrives at the caused Interference Pattern, in that Substrate!

And, thus, such delayed interlopers having been affected by their differing particular passages through that changed Substrate, to finally produce, as Particles, the overall pattern on the detection screen.

Waves are rendered once more properties of extended, connected Substrates, when disturbed by a Particle. which scamper ahead and ultimately produce an interference pattern, that then affects its own much slower-moving cause.

And, the required undetectable Units for such a Substrate, are indeed possible via mutually-orbiting pairs of diametrically-opposite, composing sub-units.

You only have to consider Pair Production and Pair Annihilations, each involve one electron and one positron! For, we are informed that such processes convert Energy-to-Matter and Matter-to-Energy! How??

How about changing from and to mutually-orbiting-pairs instead? The pairs cannot be detected and so the particles appear to vanish or appear, as if from nowhere!

Ghost Particles by Michael C Coldwell
Ghost Particles by Michael C Coldwell

For, such have actually been observed to occur at Fermilab, in the Tevatron, and were named there as Positroniums. And, as it happens, all the other Leptons could also be so linked too!

Aren't such ghost particles usually called Photons - meaning disembodied Energy gobbits?

And, it makes more sense than electrical and magnetic sinusoidal oscillations, acting at right angles to one another, and carrying Energy, supposedly in totally Empty Space - not to mention turning into physical matter and antimatter particles spontaneouly! How all this is meant to happen has never been explained.

In this alternative model it is. The full nature of electromagnetism is indeed encapsulated in an orbiting charged Particle, including the involved Energy, which occur in such mutually-orbiting pairs!

Now, I am well aware of the consensus stance, but reject it both philosophicallyand physically, for I consider such a purely Maths-based stance to be merely an idealist formal construct: indeed a wholly pluralist complexity, embodying all the premise-errors due to an insistence upon Eternal Natural Laws, and also to the total omission of all qualitative changes from all of Mathematics, as well as all consequent non-dialectical Reasoning too.

Though, the complexity of their multi-dimensional Mathematics effectively hides it, their involved philosophical stance is an illegitimate amalgam of several wholly contradictory stances, apparently justified only by the immature Pragmatism of "If it works, it is right!"

The problems outlined in this piece can be transformed, once a Universal Substrate of the kind outlined above is involved, and not only due to their actions as parts of that Substrate, but also as occasionally, temporarily free-moving units dissociated from their usual Substrate roles.

For example, the theoretical Substrate research has revealed by the discovery of several different modes of those units, both as transformed Substrates, and as free-moving Streams and Vortices - the latter allowing a totally non-Copenhagen explanation for quantised electron orbits in atoms.

"The bad news is that the latest round of experiments set up to look for it claim that it can’t possibly be there."

But, consider again the theoretical research - when particles can exist in three different modes as :-

  1. Free-moving as mutually-orbiting pairs
  2. Existing as a part of the Universal Substrate
  3. Free-moving as parts of a dissociated Substrate Unit

For then the described anomalies will be due to the transfers in-and-out of being Substrate Units, and in-and-out of being mutually orbiting Pairs!

But then:

"As long ago as the 1960s, however, physicists measuring the quantity of electron neutrinos reaching Earth found a major shortfall, with one experiment detecting only 25 per cent of the expected number."

Clearly, with a totally space-filling Universal Substrate composed in part of just such Particles, the capture of some of that Solar Stream into the all-pervading Substrate composed, in part, of the same kind of Particles, seems more likely than not!

The difference between a Totally Empty Space, and one filled with a complex Universal Substrate, surely has to be colossal. Indeed, not only would such a Substrate allow the explanation of many phenomena, but it would turn a vacuum peopled with only colliding particles, into a maelstrom of turbulences, propagations, transfers and Energy.


"Rather than being massless, each neutrino did in fact have a tiny amount of mass, no more than a millionth that of an electron. This mass gives neutrinos a remarkable ability to switch between flavours"

Now, all-known-Neutrinos have been integrated, via mutually-orbiting Pairs, into my Universal Substrate, and designated as potential Gravitons or alternatively as a similar, though-much-tinier Photon, so clearly, in addition to the usual releases and captures to-and-from the Substrate, and even the regular dissociations and re-associations of pairs to-and-from the individual components, while the mini-photons will also be literally everywhere.

Thus, such a Substrate area, with is multiple processes, could very easily be misinterpreted as described in the above quote!

"That meant electron neutrinos produced in the sun’s core could transform into either muon or tau neutrinos, evading our searches on Earth."

OR, as I hope has become clear, a Universal Substrate, containing all these kinds of neutrinos, in abundance, will undergo dissociations due to the surges from the Sun, so enabling their detection as part of that Solar Stream. Not an oscillation between different types at all!

And the article goes on to mention many other anomalies - all succumbing to the same explanation as I have outlined above. I will not list them all!

But clearly, they all assume that these happen in totally Empty Space - either occurring naturally "in Space", or artificially maintained as in all pluralist experiments. But, clearly in neither situation is the undetectable Universal Substrate actually removed! It is always there, but in different states, perhaps.

However, once you have embraced the infinite variety of Ideality, and causal explanations are no longer open to you, instead you get this type of thing -

"the idea is to invent a fourth, “sterile” flavour of neutrino capable of shape-shifting into any of the other three."

Need I say more!

Now, to those who demand full explanations from myself, as the dissenter, may I say that I am just a theorist, and the task, if it is considered to be worthwhile by other Physicists, is surely to find ways of experimentally investigating my suggested undetectable Universal Substrate.

But, I'm afraid this will be impossible pluralistically!

The whole stance of current Physics prohibits such a task, which involves a complete revolution both philosophically and experimentally.

Finally, having read this article more than once, it has to be said that it reeks of Modern Mathematics, as it must, of course, if the only place to look for "reasons" is Form, therefore redirecting the focus totally from concrete Reality's Properties & Causes to Ideality's infinite Forms.

Notice how even experiment has become subordinated to confirming to the Mathematics!