I have been working on further concepts implied by my theory. One of those came up in a forum the other day when someone wanted me to talk about "particles". What I told him led him to ask me if I was saying particles didn't exist and that led to me sharing these short "quantum" tales:

"They don't exist as a "thing". They are evolving events. An electron is neither a particle nor a wave. It is an electron, which can display both properties depending on how we observe it.

This is why I don't like discussing particles. Of course we consider a ball to be a "particle" for practical purposes, but it is not. It is an interaction of the waveform probabilities within the continuum. When you are not looking at your ball, it doesn't even exist for you.

We can never find a way to formulate absolute quantum determination because our actions, including thoughts, hopes, expectations and observations, affect the next instant’s manifestation of events.

For instance, I have a sea glass business and would ocean kayak to my favorite collecting site. I landed at the beach one day and found two marbles right next to each other right next to my kayak. They were just plain, colorless, well frosted, marbles but marbles are rarer than reds (which are 1 in 5,000 pieces) and to find two right next to each other is remarkable.

So I said, "Lord, (the Creator is neither male nor female, but this is how I address It) thank you. I sure would like to find a red marble, though. I've got a blue one, and I thank you, but I sure would like to find a red one. Please, Lord?"

I put that thought aside and went back picking and after about 2 hours I was tired and it was time to go tide-wise, but there was just a little more beach to cover, so I decided to just make a quick pass and see if I could spot anything big just lying on top. Normally I would walk very slowly, looking for the gems amongst all the other glass.

Just before I got to the end there was this huge red marble. It's 15/16ths of an inch in diameter. It is a beautiful blood red with a white swirl that forms a wave. Click on the link below to view it.

http://captcass.com/images/Red%20Marble%20cropped.jpg

I rolled my eyes up and went, "Lord!, Oh God! Dear Lord, etc." Then, when I bent down to pick up the marble, there were also two pieces of jewelry quality RED glass, one on either side of the marble. I went, "Oh, Lord! Dear God!, etc.” a bunch more and danced around with tears in my eyes. This is how the Creator talks to me. The two red pieces, to me, were the Creator saying the marble was not a coincidence, that I asked for red and got red. The odds of finding all three together are just too vast for it to be otherwise.

I would also note that I had only pictured a small, regular sized red marble when I asked. I find the Creator always gives us a much better version of what we ask for than what we imagined. I believe this is because the Creator has a by far greater imagination than we do.

The point here is that neither the marble, nor even that section of beach it lay upon, existed for me until I observed them and all the superposition possibilities collapsed into my reality, which was partly determined by my wishes, faith and expectations. This eliminates the possibility of the formulation of an absolute quantum determination.

It is also why I don't like discussing "particles".  :)

I don't include the above in my paper because it is indeterminate.


                           The Girl and Reds
One day there was a girl about age 8 or 9 at the beach. She was only looking for reds (1 in 5,000 pieces). In 2 hours, she found 9 reds, whereas I, who was looking for whatever, would find a red every 3 or 4 months.

At one point she came running up to me and starting talking to me and as we were finishing up she looked down and picked up a beautiful red right from right between my feet.

I wanted to strangle that poor little girl.  :)

Children tend to find what they are looking for because they believe they can.

                          A Stranger’s Faith
I began my business by selling on the headlands. One day a man came down and asked me where to look. I told him there was a slag pile in the cove next to me and that because it replenished the beach he might find something rare like a red.

He came back in about 15 minutes with a beautiful red and asked me where else he could look. Knowing what was happening and laughing to myself,  I told him he could go to the beach behind me and that there was much more glass there and maybe he could find something even rarer, like a grape purple, which are 1 in 10,000 pieces.

He came back in about 20 minutes with a beautiful grape purple. I found about 1 a year.  :)

He simply believed what I told him, as would a little child. Sound familiar?

18 minutes ago, captcass said:

An electron is neither a particle nor a wave. It is an electron, which can display both properties depending on how we observe it.

Yeah, we don't have an accurate descriptor other than the Mathematics.

20 minutes ago, captcass said:

We can never find a way to formulate absolute quantum determination

Yeah, because determinism doesn't exist.

24 minutes ago, captcass said:

The point here is that neither the marble, nor even that section of beach it lay upon, existed for me until I observed them

Delusional people often have their own 'version' of reality.

And a final point ...
Only an ignorant fool, or ancient people who didn't know better, ascribe processes that they don't understand to a 'Creator'.

These stories prove there is no absolute quantum determinism because the observer's mental state helps determine the outcome. Ask and you recieve, seek and you find.

It is a quantum world. Only logical possibilities exist before observation.

"Matter" is made up of electrons and quarks, which evolve forward nearly at the speed of light, c, in a holographic continuum that evolves at c at the invariant 1 s/s rate of the universe as a whole and in each observer. Tis is why the speed of light is c.

When we observe, we get a freeze frame of one of those possibilties because when we look at something moving at c, time appears to stop. Thus we can look back billions of yeats in space because photons travel at c.

These stories demonstrate that our wishes and merely desies, effect what is materialized for us in teh next instant.

This is how much the observer effects the observed.

The attached paper is my most recent paper, which is currently under review. #10 of a series that includes math proofs of the holograph and unified field.

It explains the primitive field the model is evolved from. Please refer to teh referenced peer reviewed papers for derivations and proofs of the holographic continuum and unified field before commenting here.

TDC8pre.pdf

No, I'm not going to read your paper; I have better things to do than waste time.

I would like to point out that I can collapse a wave function, from a superposition of possible states, to a single observable, with an apparatus, or any interaction mechanism.
Does that mean inanimate objects, or mechanisms, also have 'consciousness' that can render reality ?

9 hours ago, captcass said:

"They don't exist as a "thing". They are evolving events. An electron is neither a particle nor a wave. It is an electron, which can display both properties depending on how we observe it.

Narratives that tell you how to sort out the way to think about QM are called interpretations. Actual QM, or any competing theory, would be able to make specific predictions.

There’s no actual science here.

To your question in the title, this belongs in speculations. There is religion here, but it’s what you invoked, no in QM.

8 hours ago, captcass said:

These stories prove there is no absolute quantum determinism because the observer's mental state helps determine the outcome. Ask and you recieve, seek and you find.

Anecdotes are not evidence. Coincidences happen all the time.

"Coincidences happen all the time"

Exactly, it happens all the time, This is because it is evolving around us, for us....

The author owns a museum and rents space in a large building. Across the hall there was a video rental store that sold movie snacks and one day the author noted they sold caramel corn.

When he got back to the museum, he had a strong craving for the caramel corn, which he hadn’t had in decades, but resisted the strong urge several times since he knew if he got started on caramel corn, he would get into it and in a month have to go on a diet to lose the five pounds he gained eating the caramel corn.

The author brings fruit for snacks each day and when he is done with it he throws away the rind or whatever is left in the trash can outside what was then the video

Journal of Cosmology, Vol. 20, pp. 8815 - 8848

8832

store, and is now a video game store, as it is emptied daily, unlike the trash can in his museum.

Later that day, he ate his fruit and walked over to throw away the residue and in the trash can, right on top, was an unopened bag of caramel corn. Of course, he took the corn and got into it for a month and when he finally stopped eating it had to go on a diet for a month to lose the five pounds he gained eating it. Thus, we do not have to directly ask for something. The Creator also responds just to desire and, in this case, with a great sense of humor.

Did that bag of caramel corn just materialize there for the author? In the quantum sense, yes, but if we had a video camera on the trash can, and we searched the video, we would find it came there through the natural course of events, like someone overweight who bought the caramel corn in the video store, but had second thoughts about it on the way out and simply threw it away. That is, of course, a possibility, as improbable it is as a mere coincidence.

However, if we had no way to go back and look, it would be the same as if it just materialized there, as our worlds are always materializing around us for us out of what are just the logical possibilities and all that is needed is the logical possibility it could occur, not that that possibility actually occurred.

As in the “Biblical Tales”[14] paper, miracles will always appear to have occurred in the natural course of events when scrutinized.

This effect due to scrutinization is similar to what we see in the dual slit phenomenon with the electron.

If we have a solid barrier with two slits in it and have a screen behind the barrier, when we fire an electron at the screen midway between the slits, we will see that the electron passes through both slits simultaneously and behaves like a wave, creating a wave interference pattern on the screen. However, if we put a video camera on one of the slits to observe what is happening, the electron will pass only through that one slit and leave a single dot on the screen as though it is a particle.

So, is the electron a wave or a particle? It is neither. It is just an electron and how we scrutinize it affects what we see it as.

14 minutes ago, captcass said:

Exactly, it happens all the time, This is because it is evolving around us, for us....

“Because” is the problem here. If you want to assign a causal relationship you need to obtain actual scientific evidence with a systematic study, and show that it’s not something that happens randomly.

Correlation is not causality, and confirmation bias does not even show correlation.

Here is another favorite. The attached paper shows,mathematically, how the universe nolds from within us.

When the author began his sea glass jewelry business, he used to sit down near "Glass Beach", where he collected his sea glass, to sell his jewelry to the tourists.

He was sitting there the second week he began selling in June, 2005, reading "The DaVinci Code" to pass his time.

He had just read about a five-petaled rose, pictured with 3 leaves in the book, the major symbol in the book because it represents the Holy Grail, which is what the book is about. What he had read was, "The rose is synonymous with the Grail", and was sitting there thinking about that when a woman came back up off the beach and asked him if it was usual to find rose-colored glass.

Journal of Cosmology, Vol. 20, pp. 8815 - 8848

8841

He said, "No, rose is very rare. I don't even have any." It is about 1:3,000 pieces and I had only been collecting for a couple o weeks.

She said, "Well, I found a piece," and put her hand in her pocket. He expected her to pull out a small pebble. Instead, she handed him one of the most beautiful pieces of beach glass he had ever seen come off the beach at that point.

He looked at it and was totally in awe when he saw it had a perfect five-petaled rose on it, complete with three leaves: the very same rose he was reading about in the book when she walked up! Figure 2.

When he showed her what he had just read and the picture in the book, she gave him the piece of sea glass. He tried to turn it down, but she insisted.

The kicker to this tale is that she was from "Santa Rosa", or "Saint Rose", California.

A friend of the author, Rachel, from New Brunswick, Canada, found a piece with the same pattern and identified the pattern online. It was made by Jennifer Glass between 1932 and 1934, and the pattern name is “Adam”, which means “man”.

TDC5JoC.pdf

A bag of caramel corn ( about 50 gm ) contains about 150 calories.
A large apple ( about 250 gm ) contains about 150 calories.
I doubt you'd need to go on a diet after switching one for the other after about a month.

That is how science is done; you quantify things so you can make testable predictions, not simply wave your hands like you do in all your anecdotal ( made up ? ) non-sensical posts.
And you should know that if you profess to edit a reputable ( ? ) scientific journal.

For teh skeptics, consider the odds of these "coincidneces" occurring: 1:5,000 and 1:10,000+

The Japan story that follows is just to demonstrate that the world is not always what we think it is;

The author began his business by selling on the headlands above the beaches. One day a man came down and asked him where to look. He told the man there was a slag pile in the cove next to him and that because it replenished the beach he might find something rare like a red.

He came back in about 15 minutes with a beautiful red and asked the author where else he could look. Knowing what was happening and laughing to himself, he told him he could go to the beach behind him and that there was much more glass there and maybe he could find something even rarer, like a grape purple.

He came back in about 20 minutes with a beautiful grape purple. Grape purples are one of the rarest colors, being just 1 in 10,000 pieces. The author found only four in ten years of collecting.

The man simply believed what he was told, as would a child. Sound familiar?

JAPAN:

This is a different tale in that it is about what was not found.

In the ninetenn seventies, I was the Second Officer on a ship going to the Far East. The ship was running a direct great circle, the shortest route, between San Fransico and southern Japan.

The Second Officer is the ship’s navigator and stands the four to eight watch in the morning and evening so he can get star fixes during twilight, when both the stars and horizon are visible. In those days, the star fixes were the most accurate positions we got on the open ocean.

On the morning we were to make landfall, after a twenty-two day passage, the sky was crystal clear with no moon and the stars were all shining brightly, allowing me to shoot six stars that plotted as a perfect pinwheel on the chart a perfect fix.

At eight A M, I got off watch and told the Captain we would be making landfall at ten A M.

At noon, I was called to the bridge and the Captain asked me where Japan was. He said I told him we would see it at ten and now it was noon and there was still no Japan there.

Celestial navigation was done longhand in a notebook and the Captain checked my fix and everything was as it should be, including average speed for the day’s run, fuel consumption in barrels per mile and the amount of propellor slip, which are important figures for the Chief Engineer.

Everything worked out perfectly, except Japan wasn’t there until two more hours, two P M. It was sixty miles further than it was supposed to be.

I have asked cartographers if perhaps the hills and valleys in the ocean might account for it and they said that would only be a mile or so.

No answer was found.

Years later I was Captain of another ship and it was on a great circle from San Fransico to Yokohama, Japan, the same route.

Two days from Yokohama, I called in my Second Officer and asked him to work a great circle backwards from Yokohama to our present position. By then this was done by a navigation computer in just a few minutes.

After about an hour, the Second Officer came down and nervously started apologizing for his error, which he couldn’t figure out, and said that there was an additional sixty miles to go and I stopped him and told him it wasn’t his fault and explained my own experience.

It is rare that ships cross the entire Pacific on a great circle because other stops or weather can require changes and I only did it on those two voyages.

It does not occur on aircraft. Just ships and, possibly, just those two ships on those two voyages. But I prefer to think not and that, if one were to sail a great circle from San Francisco to Japan today, that Japan would not be there.

27 minutes ago, MigL said:

A bag of caramel corn ( about 50 gm ) contains about 150 calories.
A large apple ( about 250 gm ) contains about 150 calories.
I doubt you'd need to go on a diet after switching one for the other after about a month.

That is how science is done; you quantify things so you can make testable predictions, not simply wave your hands like you do in all your anecdotal ( made up ? ) non-sensical posts.
And you should know that if you profess to edit a reputable ( ? ) scientific journal.

I didn't switch one for the other. I just added the caramel corn. At 76, my metabolism is lower and I can gain a pound just by looking at a pint of ice cream. :)

1 hour ago, captcass said:

For teh skeptics, consider the odds of these "coincidneces" occurring: 1:5,000 and 1:10,000+

Scientists tend to be skeptical of numbers presented without reference, and anecdotes presented without systematic study.

The religious, and crackpots, and people who don’t understand probability and statistics (these groups have overlap), can find great meaning in them

I am an expert in Sea Glass and its odds. I own the Sea Glass Museum in Fort Bragg, CA and have what is probably the world's most extensive collection of over 250,000 pieces I personally collected. The odds can also be found in Richerd LaMotte's award winning book, "Pure Sea Glass". LaMotte is co-founder of the Inernational Sea Glass Association.

I am not "religious" as most people perceive it. I have demystified the Bible, explaining all the miracles in the normal course of events in the attached preprint, which nearly all, ~1700, of the theologians in the top 72 English-speaking divinity schools have read. I also turned Jesus back into a normal man, just like you and me.

To me, "religion" is just what we do or don't do for our own welfare and the welfare of the community at large. If you brush your teeth every day, you do so religiously and have religion, whether you believe in the Creator or not. Spirituality, on the other hand, is your relationship with the greater life inhabiting your body, which it is creating as you live and breath.

I already shared TDC5, showing how the universe unfolds from within us. TDC4, which is attached, explains the One Life.

The peer reviewed Time Dilation Cosmology papers have the mathematical derivations and proofs of the holographic continuum.

Biblical Tales.pdf TDC4JoC.pdf

Edited August 1Aug 1 by captcass
spelling and typos

6 hours ago, MigL said:

you should know that if you profess to edit a reputable ( ? ) scientific journal.

Their website very clearly lists them as a graphic artist (not the link above, but the webpage for the museum they just referenced).

It’s okay that they’re passionate about their topic, but I get the very real sense that they will be impervious to reason and criticism of their view.

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

Their website very clearly lists them as a graphic artist (not the link above, but the webpage for the museum they just referenced).

You folks need to do your homework. The graphic artist is my daugheter, Cassie.

I am a cum laude graduate of the United States merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, NY, class of '72. I have an IQ of 141.

The Journal of Cosmology deals with subjects most so-called respectable journals will not even consider, such as consciousness, panspermia and the origins of life. We publish papers that are part of LCDM as well.

We publish any paper that is logical throughout and does not violate any universally accepted laws. We charge a nominal $35 submission fee and if the paper is accepted (80% are rejected) a $150 publishing fee. Hardly preditory when Elsevier is charging thousands of dollars per article.

The main objection by the people on Wikipedia is the review process, which they are wrong about. I addressed this with them a couple of years ago but they decided to stick with their prejudice. One of our editors is a Nobel laureate and another a recent recipient of the MBE from King Charles.

If LCDM is wrong, which the JWST has proven it is, finding galaxies where LCDM says there are none, which journals are publishing junk?

You are also right that I am not about to change my mind. The TDC model is being widely followed throughout the astrophysics, quantum physics and theological university communites down to the PHD student level. In the past 5.5 years the TDC papers have had thousands of professor downloads and not a single individual, not one, has found a fault with it. Not one. Meanwhile TDC resolves all the conundrums in the LCDM model and has no unknown or dark elements, like LCDM has.

Spiritually, I learned to wash my hands in acid without harm, amongst other things, from a Muslim Haji in Djakarta, Indonesia shortly after I graduated the academy. I was a very bitter atheist at the time but learned the power of faith and therefore studied all the great faiths to determine what the founders knew, not what they teach in the churches and temples and mosques.

I did a lot of meditation and sensory deprivation seeking what was supposed to be within me, only to find just me. One day, in frustration, I asked for something. I got it almost immediately and in such a way I knew it was what I asked for.

I kept asking and kept getting and finally had an epiphany and realized it was a world of light, not rock, if I was getting all of this.

It wasn't until 2015 that I had an inspiration about gravity. I emailed DeGrass Tyson and he kindly replied and suggested I go back to school to prove it. I told him that was unlikely at age 65, but ended up doing it as it was my only way forward. First I refreshed my calculus and studied quantum mechanics using MIT's open courseware and other sources, and then tensor calculas so I could read Einstein in the original to see if I was on track. I was. Indeed, in his 1915 paper, Einstien calls the time elements his "energy components", his " ", Sadly he missed what was actually happening, which is why GR doesn't explain all galactic rotation velocities, which TDC does. It turns out he was right about the time components, just not that time is acutally the fundamental force of the universe. The force in time, in Newtons, is F = c^2*(dRt), where dRt = the difference in the rate of time from the invariant 1 s/s rate of the universe, and the observer, as a whole. That formula is derived in my "Unified Field" paper in section 3.3, in the electron derivation. And yes it is in Newtons. Check the attached paper for the derivation to see why.

 For those who want to view all the papers, there are links to them and the video I recently put up for the layperson in Vol 27 of the Journal of Cosmology: thejournalofcosmology.com

The Unified Field - jmp2024157_37505306.pdf

Edited August 1Aug 1 by captcass
spelling and typos

19 minutes ago, captcass said:

Spiritually, I learned to wash my hands in acid without harm

You see ?

This means absolutely nothing; just hand-waving.
Unless you mention the type and molarity of the acid, you could be washing your hands in lemon juice or vinegar.
Then again even a 'weak' acid which doesn't fume or burn you, like Hydrofluoric, will kill you if you soak your hands in it.

In this Forum we don't discuss generalities and anecdotal evidence.
We like some precision.
Still waiting for you to provide some.

Unfortunately the name was in Indonesian so I could't tell and I left Djakarta 2 weeks later.

An expat engineer who dippied the tip of his finger in it said in might have been a very strong base. It disolved scraps of metal and a spoon foamed blackly and dissolved when dipped in it.

I did it both with and without faith. With faith it felt like water. With doubt, it burned like hell and I lost several layers of skin.

The full story is in TDC4, which I have attached again. It is in the quantum tales section.

TDC4JoC.pdf

1 hour ago, captcass said:

The graphic artist is my daugheter

Thanks for the correction. I didn’t read the rest

If you are into time, begin with my first paper. It is not space and time. It is spacetime. 2 aspects of the same thing. Space has inertia but space is dynamic. Time drags space forward. Very simple and logical, like science was before Hubble saw the shift.

Everything can be looked at either spatially or temporally. If time appears to slow, space must appear to expand to maintain c. Becaue things appear to be accelerating away from us, time appears to slow for that object. the higher the velociy: time dilation. So, even in an expanding universe like in LCDM, space must appear to expand the slower time appears to get and when we get to the cosmological horizon where v = c, time appears to stop so space must appear to be infinite, Time dilation manifests spatial expansion.

The time dilation is always centered around the observer, who always experiences the highest rate of time in their personal universe. That can’t be denied, even in LCDM.

In TDC I demonstrate that instead of spatial expansion, it is time dilation due to a 2.2686*10^-18 s/s acceleration within lifeforms. This is why plants can grow upward against gravity. You can't move against gravity without acceleration.

Einstein said he thught the universe might be alive somehow. I explain how in TDC4.

Look around you. trillions of life forms for just One Life. Look at an amoeba. 1 lifeform with 1 life inhabiting it. To reproduce, it copies its own genetic materail and divides in 2. Now we have 2 lifeforms, but still just the One Life.

The sperm and ovum are both alive. But when the sperm penetrates the ovum and completes the genetic map for a new lifeform, there is just the one ife inhabiting it.

To one eternally alone, the most important other is a loving other, so it makes us male and female and in our loving we bring forth more loving others from within us. It is very beautiful. That life passes on from generation to generation, making slight adaptations to the enviornement it is in, not accidental evolution. It is all manifested from within us, as in TDC5.

If we are alive, and it is truely a continuum, then all is alive.

Not religion, spirituality HAS to be part of the model because the observer affects the observed. Period.

Even atheists roll up their eyes in a foxhole. It is innate. Our holy spirit (not some "holey ghost" or other being. It is just like our sense of humor; innate.

 

This is the paper currently under review. If you look at the end, it lists all the fromulas in terms of dRt. The papers derive and prove all of them.

dRt is the common element in energy, gravity, space, the Hamiltionian, etc. It ties everything together. A unified field, the observer-conditioned differnetial time rate field.

TDC8pre.pdf

18 hours ago, captcass said:

I am an expert in Sea Glass and its odds. I own the Sea Glass Museum in Fort Bragg, CA and have what is probably the world's most extensive collection of over 250,000 pieces I personally collected. The odds can also be found in Richerd LaMotte's award winning book, "Pure Sea Glass". LaMotte is co-founder of the Inernational Sea Glass Association.

I am not "religious" as most people perceive it. I have demystified the Bible, explaining all the miracles in the normal course of events in the attached preprint, which nearly all, ~1700, of the theologians in the top 72 English-speaking divinity schools have read. I also turned Jesus back into a normal man, just like you and me.

To me, "religion" is just what we do or don't do for our own welfare and the welfare of the community at large. If you brush your teeth every day, you do so religiously and have religion, whether you believe in the Creator or not. Spirituality, on the other hand, is your relationship with the greater life inhabiting your body, which it is creating as you live and breath.

I already shared TDC5, showing how the universe unfolds from within us. TDC4, which is attached, explains the One Life.

The peer reviewed Time Dilation Cosmology papers have the mathematical derivations and proofs of the holographic continuum.

Biblical Tales.pdf TDC4JoC.pdf

There is no science in your ramblings, but I was interested to learn what sea glass is. It’s very pretty. I gather the best place for it in Britain is at Seaham, on the coast of County Durham, as there used to be a glassworks there making bottles.

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

There is no science in your ramblings, but I was interested to learn what sea glass is. It’s very pretty. I gather the best place for it in Britain is at Seaham, on the coast of County Durham, as there used to be a glassworks there making bottles.

Yes, Seaham is well knowm. I purchased some glass from there for my museum. It is known for "multis", pieces with more than one color.

As for my "ramblings", try reading a paper so it makes sense to you. You apparently know nothing about time and how the time elements work in GR. Sadly, in this case ignorance is not bliss. If you can't read, or understand math, watch the video. You are missing the true wonder of this world.

The UK professors are my biggest group of followers. Why not pop into the university or divinity school and maybe they can clue you in to why they are all following my work. :)

31 minutes ago, captcass said:

Yes, Seaham is well knowm. I purchased some glass from there for my museum. It is known for "multis", pieces with more than one color.

As for my "ramblings", try reading a paper so it makes sense to you. You apparently know nothing about time and how the time elements work in GR. Sadly, in this case ignorance is not bliss. If you can't read, or understand math, watch the video. You are missing the true wonder of this world.

The UK professors are my biggest group of followers. Why not pop into the university or divinity school and maybe they can clue you in to why they are all following my work. :)

You are fantasising. I guarantee there are no UK professors following your work, whether in science or theology faculties. 🙄

They might not be talking about it, but the stats say they all are following it. No one in the establishment wants to talk about it as it is too far from what they are invested in, but when I send a direct link to a group of people, I know exactly how many downloaded the paper.

In the UK, over 100% downloaded the preprint of TDC7, meaning they also sent the link to others. In Chicago, at Notre Dame, the theologians nearly all downloaded the preprint demystifying the Bible, but no one has downloaded anything since because my view of the Creator, and Jesus is the death blow to their pagan liturgy, Jesus as God and praying to dead people, etc.

The theological communites have different proclivities. The UK has the most intellectual theologians. Those sects also have a strong presence on the East Coast of the USA which has the second highest rate of downloads, while the percentage even drops further on the West Coast where new age, evangelical sects predominate.

I also have direct knowlege that the model is getting a lot of ionterest amongst the Whiteheadians.

AI confirms all of this and I use AI to access the stats.

I find it interesteing that the only feedback I get in the forum is negative and nit picking. Not one of you has commented on the math or tried to fault it. You are all just negative talk and no action. Read any of the papers I put up here and then let's talk about it. Isn't that the purpose of the forum?

I had a PHD Fellow from teh Neils Bohr institure email me and thank me for my work. I asked him if he thought there was much interest in my works and he said "Yes! I am sure most of the OHD students know who you are and your work." (sic)

A Princeton professor also acknowledged my work is well known now down to the PHD dtudent level. These comments indicate that is so in all 50 universites on my physicist mailing list.

Edited August 2Aug 2 by captcass
Small addition

2 hours ago, captcass said:

I find it interesteing that the only feedback I get in the forum is negative and nit picking. Not one of you has commented on the math or tried to fault it.

your 'ramblings' in this thread don't inspire confidence in your critical thinking/reasoning.
All we've gotten is unrelated anecdotal stories about sea-glass, things 'appearing' without you asking for them, and nameless people ( from NBI and Princeton no less ) and AI ( ? ) who praise your work.

Either provide evidence for your scientific claims, or stick to the subject of sea-glass.

Edited August 2Aug 2 by MigL

6 hours ago, captcass said:

Yes, Seaham is well knowm. I purchased some glass from there for my museum. It is known for "multis", pieces with more than one color.

This points to why your personal expertise is insufficient to make pronouncements about odds and probabilities. If your collection was representative, no place would be “known for” a particular type.

If you were here to engage in discussion in good faith we could go into detail, but uploading documents and telling people to read them indicates you are not, and is not how we conduct discussions here (per rule 2.7)

This is not a platform for lecturing, and this is the second thread in a row I’ve had to point this out.