“The Unified Field Theory”
Third-Party Conceptual Mirroring
By Dr. Michael J. Bisconti
This article was originally posted in 2004 at http://lfnexus.com/thirdpartyconfirmation.htm.
Dr. Bisconti has been waiting for, at least, third-party conceptual mirroring (this is NOT another and independent proof of the “Unified Field Theory”) before releasing any portion of his formal paper Field Unification: The Theory of Infinite Relativity. He has found that conceptual mirroring at http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw80.html in an article by Professor John G. Cramer on the CENPA (Center for Experimental Nuclear Physics and Astrophysics) website of the University of Washington in Seattle, Washington.
What started Dr. Bisconti on the road to his discovery of the “Unified Field Theory” was something he heard a few years ago in a report from one of our national, nuclear physics laboratories. The statement was clearly and unmistakably made regarding quarks (a quark was once thought to be the tiniest thing in existence) that (in the following statement, the word “larger” does not mean “spatially larger”; it means “possessing greater mass-energy” and the word “smaller” does not mean “spatially smaller”; it means “possessing lesser mass-energy.”):
(In the following statement, the word “bigger” does not mean “spatially bigger”; it means “possessing greater mass-energy.”) Like the fictional, “Dr. Who” time machine called the TARDIS, quarks had been discovered that were “bigger on the inside than they were on the outside.” Now there are only two ways to respond to this: you either believe that you “must be missing some important piece of information” and seek a resolution of the contradiction or you must adopt the postulate that the “universe is ‘dis-integrated,’” (by “dis-integrated” we mean “not consisting of dimensionally contiguous elements”; in other words, the universe is multidimensional and, as we shall show, infinitely dimensional) which leads to the postulate that “the universe is infinite on all scales,” which, as it turns out, suddenly makes everything clear. The following extract from Dr. Bisconti’s paper Field Unification: The Theory of Infinite Relativity provides the core concepts of the theoretical physics that prove the “cosmic disintegration” (“‘dis-integration’ of the universe”) postulate and, in conjunction with other postulates, the “infinite scale” postulate. It is these postulates upon which the Unified Field Theory is based:
(This extract begins on page 5112 of Dr. Bisconti’s full paper.) The problem with all “quark substructure” preon models is the “mass paradox.” (See Dr. Bisconti’s full paper for the lambda variables involved here.) A composite particle at rest may be either lighter or heavier than the sum of its constituent “elements.” A nucleus approximately 10-13 m in size is slightly lighter than the neutrons and protons of which it is composed. (Dr. Bisconti references hundreds of experiments in connection with the preceding and following statements in this paragraph.) This is due to the strong-force binding energy that holds the nucleus together. About 8 MeV of energy are expended when a neutron or proton is pulled loose from its nuclear binding. 10 MeV of energy have been found to occur in multidimensional extrapolations. Thus, an assembled nucleus has about 1% less mass-energy than its disassembled constituent “elements.”
These facts are challenged by the competing fact that the proton, approximately 10-15 m in size, is much heavier than the mass sum of its three constituent “elements,” these being two “up quarks” and one “down quark.” (See the “Quark Hierarchy Matrix” in Dr. Bisconti’s full paper.) The proton’s mass is 938 MeV, expressed in terms of energy units. On the other hand, the “up quark” has a mass of only about 4 MeV and the down quark has a mass of only about 7 MeV. The kinetic energy (but this is influenced by what Dr. Bisconti refers to as the “infinity constant”) of the proton’s quark constituent “elements” provides the majority of the proton’s mass. The quarks in a proton are confined to a “movie” segment (Dr. Bisconti has experimentally proven that the three-dimensional universe exists only in our minds and our perceptions) only approximately 10-15 m across.
The product of uncertainties in position and momentum must be greater than h-bar according to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle (though Dr. Bisconti’s theory modifies Heisenberg’s principle by a factor of f(l) [see Dr. Bisconti’s paper for the explanation of f(l)]), so a quark occupying approximately 10-15 m must have an energy-unit, momentum uncertainty of at least 197 MeV. The energy contributions from three quarks (technically, there are multidimensional models that would allow up to 97.6 quarks [see Dr. Bisconti’s paper for an explanation of the “.6”]) having approximately this momentum in each of the three space directions equals the proton mass (+/- l [see Dr. Bisconti’s full document]). The net mass energy of the proton is thus derived primarily not from the rest masses of its constituent quarks but from their internal motions.
Scattering experiments, performed by Dr. Bisconti (Dr. Bisconti has added computer-modelling to the mix) and others, have demonstrated that quarks and leptons are locus subsets in terms of distance scales of less than 10-18 m, approximately 1/1000th of the diameter of a proton or the “kezmeron” predicted by Dr. Bisconti’s “Unified Field Theory.” The momentum uncertainty of a preon confined to a movie segment of this size is about 200 GeV, which is 50,000 times greater than the rest mass of an “up quark” and 400,000 times greater than the rest mass of an electron. This also applies to the predicted kezmeron. Thus, the preon model demands the following paradox, the “mass paradox”:
The particles that make up quarks and electrons (and the predicted kezmerons) each have many orders of magnitude greater mass-energy than the quarks and electrons (and predicted kezmerons) that they compose.
Note that these mass-energies arise from their incredible momenta. (You can pick this discussion up at page 5333 in Dr. Bisconti’s full paper.)
“The Unified Field Theory”
By Dr. Michael J. Bisconti
Note to our fellow theoretical physicists: We are fully aware of the seemingly slapdash nature of the commentary below. However, this page was written for the masses and you, of course, must agree that the theoretical technicalities underlying the Unified Field Theory would be absolutely incomprehensible to most people. Two papers are available. The first is Dr. Bisconti’s formal paper titled Field Unification: The Theory of Infinite Relativity (100,000 pages). The second is the synopsis of Dr. Bisconti’s formal paper titled Synopsis: Field Unification: The Theory of Infinite Relativity (1,000 pages). Quick note: Einstein should have listened more closely to Schwarzschild.
Dr. Albert Einstein gave us:
Now, Dr. Michael J. Bisconti gives us:
This is the “core equation” of the Unified Field Theory. The letter “T” stands for time. The letter “e” stands for energy. The letter “c” stands for the velocity (speed) of light. Every law of the physical universe can be directly or indirectly associated with the three universal concepts of T, time, e, energy, and c, velocity (speed) of light.
The core UFT equation tells us that Time is equal to energy times the speed of light to the third power. That is, Time is equal to energy times the speed of light times the speed of light times the speed of light. The speed of light is approximately 186,000 miles/sec. Therefore, Time is roughly equal to energy times 186,000 miles/sec. times 186,000 miles/sec. times 186,000 miles/sec.
In Dr. Einstein’s theory, an incredibly large amount of energy is derived from a relatively small amount of matter, as in a nuclear explosion. In Dr. Bisconti’s theory, a relatively small amount of (new) time is derived from an incredibly small amount of energy, as in a “temporal explosion.”
A temporal explosion is an explosion that occurs in “time” instead of space. The force of a temporal explosion stretches the fabric of time. This stretching is followed by a snapping back of the time fabric, as when you release a stretched rubber band. This snapback forces future time to push present time into past time. A person caught in the snapback suddenly finds themself at a different point in time. This person, in effect, NOT ACTUALLY, has travelled through time. More later.
Welcome to the eleventh generation of our website dealing with the subject of Chronotransology, “Time Travel.” Our previous website is available at http://chronotransology.ccunexus.com/.
Skip To Most Recent Articles
Before we begin, we want everyone to know that this is not science fiction. However, we are not saying that we have built a time machine. We are simply saying three things:
- Time travel is possible.
- We have theoretical proof of the possibility of time travel.
- There are laws that would govern time travel if a time machine were ever built.
The Laws of Time
The Law of The Past
Man cannot travel backward in time.
The Law of The Present
Man cannot return to the present after having travelled through time.
The Law of The Future
Man can travel forward in time but only so far.
We will be providing the theoretical proof of the possibility of time travel as soon as we have fully protected our interests in our theory, which will take an unknown period of time to accomplish. However, until then, we can at least give you a couple of tidbits:
- Past thinkers on the question of time travel have been unable to solve one or more problems in temporal physics because they have started with the wrong premises.
- One incorrect premise is the belief that objective reality is perceptual reality. We will let you know now that it is almost an absolute certainty that you do not understand what you just read. If so, this does not mean that you will never be able to understand. We will elaborate further as soon as possible.