Bearden UFOsandUAPs ADA068988

~
'"(
14. The orthodox interpretation of J,:.hYsics has a severe limitation: Only a single observer
at a time is pennitted, Everett, working under the renowned John Wheeler at Princeton
University, considered the problem of multiple simultaneous observers and reinterpreted
physics. 6 In this interpretation, all possibilities --no matter how weird or far out --
are concretely real and exist in alternate, orthogonal universes. This physics, which
is totally consistent with the entire experimental basis of physics, 7 is so strange that
most physicists cannot tolerate it. Accordingly, little or no work has been done along
the lines prescribed by this physics. However, one may easily show that these alternate
universes crosstalk in the virtual state, and this author has shown that a scheme exists
whereby this crosstalk --and indeed the virtual state --can be directly amplified into
observable state. 8 At least one successful device along the lines of cohering the virtual
state and amplifying it -- T. Henry Moray's radiant energy device9 -- has been built.
15. There is as yet no satisfactory union of guantum mechanics and relativity. Part of
the reason is the assumption of 11 simultaneous existence'' of spatially separated points
in a frame, by relativity. This is erroneous; dividing the length between two points by
c, the speed of light, gives the time separation between them for unaccelerated frames
{linear conditions). The assumption of two clocks placed slowly at the two points after
having been first synchronized, and then reading the same time, so to speak, is the
assumption of linear, parallel conditions by two observers. In quantum mechanics, two
observable changes can never be simultan\:~ous, since quantum change occurs monocularly.
16. Present lo9!c is known to be incomplete,, and many things are true but illogical. E.g.,
what we call a "paradox" is something which 1s known to be true, but which can be shown
to violate one or more of the three laws of logic. Hosts of such paradoxes are known, the
simplest being change itself. I.e., for a thing to change, it must become something else.
Yet then how can it be itself and something else too·i' The first law, A = A, is violated
if A becomes A, as is the second law, A ; A. Further, since we are considering A to
have become X and therefore to be both A and A., it violates the third law, which states
that AVA , a thing can only be one or the other, not bot.h. Therefore change is totally
illogical. Since change is all that can be detected, thought, or perceived, then all
detection, thought, and perception is illogical. The problem was posed by Heraclitus, and
has not been solved in thousands of years.
We have taken the view that such paradoxes can easily be resolved, if one realizes
that Aristotle's three laws of logic simply are the synthesis of perce~tion based on the
photon interaction. Primitive man formed all his concepts based on the photon interaction
having occurred; since photon im.eraction occurs monocularly, then pn:tsent three-law
logic is monocular. In the two-slit experiment -- which according to Fe} nman contains
the entire and the only mystery of quantum mechanics --the elec~ron beco;:~es a classical
object if interacted with by light. If it is..!!Q! interacted with by a photon, i'he electron is
not a classical {three-law logic) object, but is another type of entity. Since !.t is masstime
in that case rather than mass, it can interact in timt:~ 1 with multiple entitie~ occupying the
same time slot. Thus this author has added a fcurth law of logic2 (AI, A2]3 , where
what was separated as A in time one and what was separated as A in time two, are
combined and totally unseparated in time three. In time three, then, we may say that
A1 ~3 A2 1 insofar as the detection/~erception process in time three is concern(,d, In
other words, we treat the laws of logic simply as operational statements of the charact:c-:ristics
of the perception process 1 in which case the "identity of opposites" is easily understC)od.
However this gives us a four-law logic, where the fourth law covers every present
parcdox.~ By applying the fourth law 1 at least hypothetically it is possible to solve every
present paradox. The model of mind and matter and their interaction that is presented in
this paper was arrived at in that manner.
3.
?1
1l
1,.