From: David Lynch <dnl1960 at yahoo.com>
To: Robert Sheldon <rbs at rbsp.info>
Cc: Ethan Siegel <startswithabang at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 12:20:42 PM EDT
Subject: Something from Nothing
Rob,
Since ransomeware is a real threat, you can find all my weblinks on the
internet archive, way back machine.
I agree with you, and I have an equation that rattles the cage of science.
I call my equation the KnoWell.
I do not buy Ethan Siegel's position that Science can obtain something
from nothing as stated in the below linked article.
https://evolutionnews.org/2022/09/ethan-siegel-sells-something-from-nothing-im-not-buying/
"So we are making waves out of carbon atoms and calling this “something
from nothing.” Really?" Dr. Robert B. Sheldon
In reality, Something has created Something out of Something...
After reading Ethan Siegel's article, I sent Ethan the below linked email.
http://www.lynchphoto.com/idiots
Yes the web link is named idiots on purpose, and below is a snippet from
the idiots email.
"So if the mathematics adds up, the theory must be true?
Science is bending over backwards to seek out solutions to fit modern
cosmological observations into the Big Bang Theory. i.e, Inflation theory
that suspends the known laws of physics, inflates the Universe to match
cosmological observations, then magically reinstates the laws of physics
yielding this Universe in a bulk of multiverses.
To convey concepts, Science has chosen the mathematical language,
-∞<0.0<∞+ , that contains an infinite number of infinities, and
Science is hindered by the constraints of the mathematical language's
number line, -∞<0.0<∞+ , with its infinite number of infinities.
On 1 Sept 2018, I sent you an email in which I ask, "Could the language of
mathematics be leading science to draw conclusions?"
http://www.lynchphoto.com/siegel
Case in point:1.0 can be fractionally incremented infinitely never
reaching two, and 2.0 can be fractionally decremented infinitely never
reaching one. The infinitely wide gap between one and two creates the
mathematical anomalies of multi-verse and many worlds, thus both many
world and multi-verse theories are mathematical anomalies.
In my email to Michelle Thaller and Michio Kaku, I explain how Science has
an irreconcilable paradox.
http://www.lynchphoto.com/thaller
"A scientist whom is an atheist is quick to BLeave that there are an
infinite number of universes in the multi-verse bulk. The infinite number
of Universes theory creates the probability that a deity exists in one of
the infinite number of Universes.
Since a deity may exist in one of the infinite number of Universe, this
Universe cannot be excluded from being the Universe that contains the
deity.
The instant an atheist clams that there is not a deity in any of the
infinite number of Universes, that is the moment that the atheist is
making a claim of omnipotent knowledge of the contents of the infinite
number of Universes. Can you say, narcissist?"
In the same email to Michelle Thaller and Michio Kaku, I direct my
comments towards Michio Kaku 's search for the GOD equation.
"Over the years, Michio has made clear that he is searching for the GOD
equation. If I were to speak in blanket statements like Michael Shermer,
then I would say, using the current mathematical axiom, -∞<0.0<∞+,
with its infinite number of infinites, science will never be able to
create a GOD equation.
"Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true." ~ Niels Bohr
From the KnoWell equation, I have derived a new axiom of mathematics, “
-c>∞<c+ ”, that reduces the infinite number of infinities on
the current number line, -∞<0.0<∞+ , into a singular infinity.
In my email to Fay Dowker, I explain how to apply my new axiom of
mathematics, “ -c>∞<c+ ”, to answer some of the questions raised by
modern cosmological observations. I use Witten's M-branes to describe how
the Universe can be a steady state system.
A Casimir effect.
"The Emergence of the Universe is the Precipitation of Chaos through the
Evaporation of Control." ~3K
Continued later in the Thaller email, I state.
"As long as Science uses the current number line, -∞<0.0<∞+, to try
to convey concepts, great minds will remain trapped in wormholes made of
mirrors, and brilliant scientists will forever be deep down in black holes
filled with rabbits.
Clearly the GOD equation can never be derived by using the number line,
-∞<0.0<∞+, with its infinite number of infinities, and anyone that
thinks they can resolve the infinite number of infinites on the current
number line, -∞<0.0<∞+, into a singular GOD equation will forever be
chasing their tail.
However; there is a solution, but science must use a new axiom of
mathematics, “ -c>∞<c+ ”, to resolve the infinite number of
infinities problem.
Below is a link that shows graphically a
comparison between between the Newtonian Universe and the KnoWellian
Universe."
Science is a cult that worships in the
language of mathematics, and Science's GOD is 0.0, nothing, thus Science's
greatest mistake is 0.0, nothing.
I commend you for reading to this point.
Moving forward: Few people grasp what I am about to say, "On 19 Jun 1977
due to injuries that I received in a serious automobile accident, I have a
persistent memory of being dead."
http://www.lynchphoto.com/death
For 26 years, I was at peace with the memory of my death. On 16 Sept 2003,
I looked at the memory of my death experience in the reverse, and that
night I stumbled into abstract photography.
Over the next year, I created over two terabytes of abstract artwork, and
out of the artwork emerged the KnoWell equation.
If there ever was an equation that science is to consider as a GOD
equation, then I submit that the KnoWell should be peer reviewed.
More specifically, the KnoWell equation is drawn using the letters, I A M.
When Moses asked the burning bush, what do I tell the Israelites is your
name. The response was, I am that I am, so I have created an equation that
is drawn on the name of GOD.
Of course in making such a bold claim of creating a GOD equation that is
written on the name of GOD, I A M, there needs to be even bolder evidence
as to the scope that the KnoWell equation can be applied.
In the over 2500 years since Anaximander put forth the philosophy of
apeiron, not a single person, that I know of, has produced a diagram of
his concept.
Using the 27 dimensions of bosonic strings, breaking Einstein's T into a
past, an instant, and a future component, the structure of the KnoWell is
used to express Anaximander's apeiron.
From a message that Father delivered to me during my death experience and
a message that took me 26 years to interpret, an equation written on the
name of GOD emerged from 2 terabytes of abstract artwork.
At the top of the KnoWell, is a singular infinity that is labeled Ein Sof
who is the Infinite One from the Kabballah. BTW: The label Qu Bit can be
used.
The single infinity, “ -c>∞<c+ ”, of the KnoWell is representative
of Schrödinger's one mind, and the influence of the KnoWell's singular
infinity in the new axiom, “ -c>∞<c+ ”, can be used to explain the
following 22 concepts.
"Linguistic categories limit ~ determine cognitive categories"
Anaximander's~Apeiron
Schrodinger's~Three State Cat
Einstein's~E=mc^2
Descartes~I think therefore I am
Newton's~Action equals reaction
Hegel's~Thesis, synthesis, antithesis
Lynch's~Birth Life Death
Socrates'~All that I know is that I know nothing
Witten's~11 dimension M Theory
Standard Particle Theory~Bosons, Leptons, Quarks
Supersymmetry~AntiBosons, AntiLeptons, AntiQuarks
Bosonic String's~27 dimensions
Tesla's~3:6:9
Casimir~Effect
Dirac's~Sea of pre-particles
Sauter–Schwinger~Zero Energy
Gödel's~Incompleteness Theorems
Pascal's~Triangle -1~∞~1+
Wooden's~Ultimate L
Heisenberg's~Uncertainty Principle
Brans–Dicke~Scalar–Tensor Theory
Sapir-Whorf~“ -c>∞<c+ ”
What are the odds that a man could use the three letters I A M to convey
the above listed scientific concepts?
Big Bangers are just Flat Earthers with grant money.
If a miracle occurs and no one was there to witness, did the KnoWell
really explain the Universe?
If you have read to this point, I thank you!
Best regards,
David Noel Lynch
