Signatures of God

salvatore gerard micheal

This booklet is dedicated to my parents, Jean and Julie Micheal, and my wife and son,
Yui and Arthur. It is a collection of recent essays and letters I have written for various
forums, friends, associates, and family. There is some silliness and profanity, but mostly
it is serious talk. Sometimes, I wax poetic .. Sometimes, I wane crude. Reader be warned.

The purpose of this booklet is recognition of the Divine in creation. My mother is

Catholic. For many years, I was tortured into Catholic subservience/submission. Around
middle-school / junior high school age, I broke free. The whole ‘worship’ thing did not
make sense to me. How could God, who was supposedly infinite, need our worship? It
was absurd. I stopped going to Catechism. I refused to Confirm .. I have since decided
that God does not need our worship. That is human silliness. God does not need
anything. I suspect, God only simply wants our acknowledgment. This I reason, is
because I see His/Her/Its signature almost everywhere I look. This is not religious
insanity. This is respect.

I will give you specific examples of His/Her/Its greatness later with full discussion of
each. Examples are: human brain, dolphin sonar, and space-time. But first, I need to set
the stage by providing my letters and essays mentioned above.

First let me write a short note to Stephen Hawking. On his webpages at

http://www.hawking.org.uk/ he writes: “They all assume that one can define the wave
function at each point of space. But that would be an infinite density of information
which is not allowed.” This is near the end of his essay on Godel and the End of Physics.
He makes an interesting case that we will never discover all the laws of physics and
perhaps never discover a unified theory. But his ideas are based on convention. He is
constrained by convention. The same convention that built the LHC (large hadron
collider) to look for the Higgs. The same convention that assumes three critical things
listed below in another essay. The same convention that will forever fail at valid
unification because the system is critically flawed itself. All he states above is: God
cannot exist in our universe. That’s insane. Perhaps when God said “I Am”, He/She/It
created itself and our universe – who knows?!?! Our brains are amazing biological
technology. But they are not infinite; infinite in potential YES, but not infinite. We cannot
begin to comprehend God. We’re lucky to be able to understand our universe or
ourselves.. He’s content with playing around with ideas based on flawed assumptions.
I’m sorry Stephen, I cannot be so naïve. One interesting thing however: he gave me the
idea of how God possibly created the universe. :) Since they have basically proven that
infinite information density is impossible, that right there proves God’s existence (another
signature of God). When god finally became God (when some creature had the Divine
insight to make Itself), that infinite information density could not exist in normal space-
time. Boom: the beginning of our universe. Of course, this assumes some previous
universe and creature capable of attaining Godhood. But considering other signatures,
this is not impossible/infeasible.

Letter to various groups with subject: human resume

Name: salvatore gerard micheal
Age: 46 or 47; i’m totally confused about that; my wife says i’m 47 but my birth
certificate implies i’m 46..
Race: human-alien hybrid ;) (i believe the alien half is Thermian; watch Galaxy Quest to
see who the Thermians are..)
Occupation: network center technician (doesn’t that sound impressive?;)
Nicknames: sam, sammie, ass, asswipe, asshole, stupid asshole,..
Purpose: assist humanity to survive rough times; assist humanity to thrive
Function: father, teacher, writer, systems advocate, punching bag for wife, scapegoat /
whipping boy for: physics, wife, old ‘friends’, new ‘friends’ and associates..
Treasured Functions: baby bottom cleaner, taking out the garbage, climbing thru
crawlspaces, squeezing under floors, climbing iced poles in the dead of winter over
cement,..
Marital Status: in love with Yui Daenmaneerattana and Arthur Micheal
Pet Habit: write i instead of I
Pet Peeve: Hates ego driven ppl
Core Values: humility, trust, respect
Pet Projects: human global system (scribd.com), systems approach toward: physics
unification and machine consciousness, world utopia (example:
msu.edu/~micheal/seastead/), New World Spaceline, a unique powered bi-sailplane,
Space Garbage Inc., various exercises in futility/insanity: circumnavigating Antarctica in
a kayak, hanggliding the Andes,..
Favorite Thought: “i’m not a loser, i’m not a loser, i’m not a loser,..”
Favorite Color: Arthur
Favorite Saying: “i was taking out the garbage and she bent over.. she wanted me to
look..”
Favorite Human: God
Favorite God: Human
Favorite Religion: The Best of Humanity
Faith: to have a Meaningful life
Most Common Prayer: cherish innocence; obliterate meaninglessness
Advice for President Obama: stop posturing against Iran; respect Iran; treasure their
culture and heritage; build a better future together on common values
Advice for Humanity: don’t ignore me
Desired Epitaph: Here lays Arthur’s father and Yui’s husband; i Love you both with all
my heart, mind, body, and spirit; i Love humanity the same way; please take Care of each
other.

Love and Democracy in the 21st Century

01/FEB/2009

I'm not talking about sex. I'm not talking about agape love. I'm talking about 'falling in
love'.

Isn't it a kind of magical force? It's rare - this bidirectional power.. Rare for the fact it's
both ways - not just 'love from afar'.

It can bridge generations, 'races' (man i really Hate that word), classes, gaps in formal
education, same-sex,.. even species!

It's as if the 'love muse' or 'god of love' randomly touched two people in a crowd and
suddenly - they are acutely aware of each other - the pheromones, the emotions, the
'vibes', the blood pumping thru each other's veins,.. It's like they become one in that
magical moment. Of course, sometimes people confuse this with sex and go off to
'humping grounds' more or less private .. It's a mistake to confuse them. Falling in love is
something like resonant violins (or violas or cellos;); you play a note on one, the other
vibrates in sync. Our hearts are lifted when we fall in love; you can feel it; it feels like
your whole body is weightless; there's that incredible indescribable smile and you both
lift.

Two hearts choose each other and boom - they're suddenly on a path together. This is
where 'the trouble' begins (if there is any - perhaps caused by gaps mentioned above).
What do we do about our newfound love? Our friends are jealous and envious. Suddenly
strangers are pulled into both circles. Circles of friends are joined by magic. But those
circles may clash (for the same gaps above). Sometimes we choose our friends above our
newfound love - and the magic 'disappears' (we ignore it). Sometimes we choose the love
and lose our friendships.. But i scream at friends now: why do we have to choose! :( Let
us love; support our love! Someday, the muse will touch you and you will regret your
negativity.

Love is the only power that can save us from ourselves. It is the only viable solution to
the problems we face today. So when the muse touches you, go with it.

The other issue i'd like to discuss is about democracy. There is a cool 'new idea' about
making villages on the sea: http://www.seasteading.org/ It's a very cool idea. We could
make many of these villages - either fixed or floating. 100s or 1000s. They could be
linked via satellite communications. They could be linked politically. They could form a
new world government called Oceania or Pacifica - whatever you want to call it - but it
should be a democracy. We could do it right now - in America, but we miss our chance.
We have the technology and will - to have a pure democracy in America, but the elites
have a stranglehold on power and will not let go. They use every trick in the book to keep
their power. And the level-headed 'leaders' (i am NOT a leader) are ignored and dismissed
because we come from middle-class or 'worse' - low-class! :( When will the world wake
up???
So build your floating or fixed 'resorts on the sea' (i'm speaking to the elites now);
exclude people like me; ignore us; then you will find out what true power is; the power of
love will be in our hearts and it will blind you; and you will stumble around in the dark -
your own self-made Hell.

Love, Sam Micheal

http://www.scribd.com/sam_micheal

Letter to WorldCitizen and various other groups:

The Relentless Demon Truth

I like the word demon: it’s flexible.. It can mean anything from ‘real demon’ to imp to
any concept that seems to take on a life of its own .. even .. the pursuit of truth. :)
Sometimes ‘the muse’ is next to me and I’m truly inspired. :) The words flow almost
magically. Like now. ;) Sometimes, I can almost hear you read these words as you scan
them. :) Like Jung was right: we’re all connected somehow. :) I can’t explain it; I almost
refuse to try. Maybe it’s Earth-Gaia waking up.. I cannot know; I almost don’t want to
know. :)

The fact is: we’re connected – and not just by these words. Somehow, the fact we’re all
human and conscious/aware brings us ‘in touch’ with one another. It’s more than that. We
can almost sense each other: our needs, our dreams, our aspirations..

There’s a mood to the planet: you can call it zeitgeist or whatever you want – but we’re
all aware of it.

But what do we do with that connection.. Typically, we squander it.. Waste it.. Miss our
chance.

I’m here right now to tell you: I Love you. You are my brothers and sisters, mothers and
fathers, children and grandchildren. But it is not me I want you to focus on: it is each
other and Earth.

We’re so close to going down the toilet – everyone can feel this. Don’t cling to the sides,
don’t scramble to the rim, don’t jump for the handle,.. Don’t fight it. It’s gonna happen;
we all feel it.

The point is – how we treat each other on the way down.

Do we try to help each other? Or..

I don’t want to talk about “Or..”

I want to talk about the first one.

George Ure and Jay Weidner are two incredible guys. They are about awareness and
transformation. Listen to them: perhaps they are the two ‘witnesses’ from Revelations,
who knows.. I hate to try to ‘read’ into things – truly.

It’s better for this thing that we do not assign “this or that” from Revelations or any other
prophetic text. It’s better if we just look at each other and ask a question: how may I help
you?

I’m not saying give all your wealth to the poor – far from it. I’m saying to take care of
your family, stop gambling (and this means literally and stop spending money on things
like the LHC (large hadron collider)),..

My brother buys lottery tickets. I know of ppl from my wife’s hometown that gamble
their entire life savings away.. For what?!?! A chance at becoming rich!?!?

Please listen: I was a statistics and probability major at university. I know about the odds.
Don’t waste your time at the casino or slot machine. Please.

But the crazy thing is: this is what we do when we invest in things like the LHC or .. (you
fill in the blank). We can’t afford speculation right now – at this time in human history.
We can’t invest in ‘probability’ (the Standard Model or anything resembling it).

Okay, I stop ranting and raving about wasting money in physics..

My point is that we need to make a list of Earth/human priorities.

We need to focus on the objective steps required to ‘make them happen’.

And we gotta stop clawing at each other on the way down..

We’re goin down: do we act like humans or beasts?

A Frightening Full Circle

14/FEB/2009

What’s scary is that these ideas have a way of taking on a life of their own and ‘revisit
you in the middle of the night’ bringing all kinds of startling revelations.. Echoes of A
Christmas Carol reverberate in my mind.. Which ghost is this? I pray it is the ghost of
‘things to come’..

Let me back up a bit. Some years ago, I had approached the TEW (transverse
electromagnetic wave), the engineering view of the photon, from the Poynting
perspective. (The Poynting vector deals with energy flow and is defined as ExH, the
vector cross product between electric and magnetic fields.) The real question is: where in
the heck is the energy when both are zero magnitude??? Has to be somewhere.. Engineers
don’t care because they call the TEW ‘self-propagating’. Physicists don’t care if you
bring up impedance (the impedance of space). So I was ignored by both camps.

I had speculated that energy was forced into space-time curvature and then back to
electromagnetic field (ad infinitum). Some others had proposed the same idea at that
time.. Nothing came of it.. All of us were ignored by both camps.. Until now.

What’s scary is not the ghost revisiting. What’s scary is that it is ‘finally coming together’
almost of its own volition. When we focus on time, we get some startling results. Time
appears to be the central feature of unification. It is also the ‘elusive demon’ which
refuses to ‘stay in one place’ to be identified exactly. It keeps changing character (in a
theoretical sense) and evades my concentration.. Until now.

You are witness to the birth of a ‘demon’ which will unify physics and simultaneously
bring down the assumptions of the Standard Model. It’s very scary.

Previously, I have developed a theory of gravitation and strong force which is based on
‘distributed temporal curvature’ exclusively. We don’t need gravitons, gluons, or virtual
exchange to explain gravitation and the strong force. We don’t even need spatial
curvature. Now, as implied above, physicists are repulsed/revolted by any mention of the
word impedance. It’s artificial to them. Engineers use it everyday, but physicists are
abhorrent toward it. Largely, it’s due to the historical rejection of the aether which
suspiciously has attributes similar to impedance. But I assure physicists: impedance and
the aether are two very different things. Ask any practicing engineer.

Now this is where it gets scary..

I occasionally take showers because I get pressure from family members (from the stink
of my greasy body) and because it becomes acutely uncomfortable after an extended
period (two days in a semi-tropical area is sufficient). During my shower today, I was
considering a post to the ‘complexQM’ yahoo group. Alex is the wonderful moderator
there. My post was about the possibility of time being complex (as in complex numbers).
I happen to Love complex analysis because it has such engineering potential and because
it simply is Fun. :) But today a demon was born in the shower..

It was frightening.. I had the graciousness to smile at his birth. He’s a very clever demon.
The ‘demon’ is this: since I was able to unify gravitation with strong force via temporal
curvature, the idea suggested itself: what about impedance? It doesn’t really matter where
you assign impedance, as long as you assign it somewhere.. Impedance is a fact of our
existence/universe. The fact gravitation and strong force can be modeled exclusively by
distributed temporal curvature suggests impedance could similarly be maintained.

Impedance is the summary characteristic of ‘electromagnetic’ media/materials (including

space). It includes permeability and permittivity (magnetic and electric components
respectively). In phasor analysis (frequency analysis in electric circuits), there is a ‘real
part’ and an ‘imaginary part’ (the so-called ‘imaginary part’ is just as real as the ‘real part’
– we call the real part resistive and the imaginary part reactive). It simplifies frequency
domain analysis of electric circuits. Don’t let this terminology confuse you or distract you
from the point of this essay. These concepts are used daily by engineers as part of circuit
analysis and design.

Again, it doesn’t matter where you assign impedance – as long as it is somewhere

embedded in the model of our universe. We know that our universe is fundamentally
Euclidean (the simplest dimensional structure). Einstein ‘changed all that’ based on his
general relativity. He assumed (wrongly) that space-time must curve to explain
gravitation. His wrong assumption was: all of space-time must curve in gravitation. I
have since ‘built on’ and simultaneously dismissed his theory.. My ideas are based on his
incorrect assumptions, true. But I have learned that Occam’s Razor has more usefulness
than simply a ‘utility knife’. ;) If you can follow that, you understand that my ideas are
not truthfully based on Einstein’s.. They are a correction of them.

The ‘scary demon’ is this: time can curve; time can hold energy; and time may have
impedance. Time may be the summary characteristic that unifies theoretical physics. Very
scary but maybe true..

[The previous was sent as an email with subject: a new demon is born: the impedance of
time to various recipients including NPA, complexQM, Astrosciences, and extropy-chat.]

The Case for Complex Time

It’s not my pleasure to continually ‘stomp on’ the Standard Model .. People ask for it with
arrogance, ego, and continual dismissal of my ideas.. Let’s examine the case for complex
time (time based on imaginary numbers). “Imaginary time is a concept derived from
quantum mechanics and is essential in connecting quantum mechanics with statistical
mechanics.” from Wikipedia’s imaginary time. It continues: “Imaginary time is also used
in cosmology .. The concept is useful in cosmology because it can help smooth out
gravitational singularities in models of the universe..” “To make sense of this
mathematically we have to use Minkowski space-time rather than Euclidean space. In
Minkowski space-time, time appears as an imaginary form of space and enters the
equation as ict where i equals the square root of minus one and we have to multiply
temporal separations t, by c, lightspeed, the enormous ratio of space to time to put them
both on the same scale. Then by a simple extension of Pythagorean geometry the
separation between any two points in space-time appears as the square root of the spatial
separation squared plus the square of ict. As a result, large spatial separations with small
temporal separations appear as slightly reduced real spatial separations, whilst large
temporal separations with small spatial separations appear as imaginary 'distances'. This
seems a reasonable formulation when you consider that you cannot walk 'to' next
Tuesday.” from http://specularium.org

Now, the article above continues to ‘make a case’ for three time dimensions – not just one
or two. This becomes a ‘little’ mind boggling and I suggest employing Occam’s Razor
before ‘things get outa hand’. The whole purpose of extending time to include impedance
is the fact ‘space has impedance’. Impedance is represented by a complex number and so
has two coefficients (one for real and one for imaginary components). In addition,
complex numbers are sometimes more conveniently represented in polar form which is:
reiθ where r is magnitude and θ is the angle in the complex plane. The Euler identity
shows the relationships between polar and rectangular forms. Now again, ‘the impedance
of space’ is assumed to be isotropic. But when differing impedances are encountered in
different media, it affects energy propagation. Of course, if there is a boundary involved,
boundary effects propagate. I do not pretend to be able to explicitly describe how optics
relates to impedance, but I assure you – it can be done deterministically. There is no need
for virtual particles, virtual exchange, and any such nonsense. Also, non-locality is not
required. This may be an ‘intrinsic feature’ of complex time. That needs to be worked out.

So I am approaching complex time from ‘the other way’ (the rational reasonable
engineering approach toward unification). I am not approaching it as a requirement to
bridge quantum with statistical mechanics and solve problems in cosmology. I see it as a
way to encode impedance in the structure of space-time. It’s a convenient and elegant
unification approach.

The implications still need to be ‘worked out’. As suggested above and in an article cited
above, there may be convenient implications that produce observed phenomena such as:
double-slit/self-interference, non-locality, and perhaps others.. Let me take a moment to
plug my father’s artwork. He’s a neglected author who will probably be known for his oil
portraits/paintings. Please allow me to suggest a new name for this space. Let it be named
the Micheal space-time for my father that includes 3 Euclidean dimensions, one fully
complex time dimension: Zt, and one final dimension to measure/represent temporal
curvature (this is normalized, c=1): (x, y, z, Zt, C) where these are listed in somewhat
standard Cartesian notation and C again here is temporal curvature. Do not confuse little
z which is a Cartesian dimension with big Z which is an arbitrary complex number
denoting impedance. Truthfully, you cannot get much simpler than that and still ‘tie it all
together’.

Braneless Higgsless Models

Did you read that right? Or did you read Brainless Hipless Models? No, this is not about
fashion models. This essay is about unification physics. Branes are usually associated
with multiple dimensions. They are extensions or multidimensional analogues of strings.
‘Unfortunately’, this essay is not about brainless models. It is about braneless models
(models without branes). It is about Higgsless models (models without Higgs bosons).
Models with Higgs (as models without hips) have become standard in the industry. But
unfortunately, these usually require multiple dimensions (as these models require ‘extra
dimensions’ to make things ‘fit’;). It sounds much like fashion modeling and perhaps it is.
Modern physics has become faddish and has been drawn ‘down a road which leads
nowhere’. Multidimensions are both faddish and fantasy. Branes are both faddish and
fantasy. Unfortunately, strings, superstrings, and supersymmetry are all fads and fantasy.
Some years ago, I was a string theory advocate just as I advocated the LHC (Large
Hadron Collider). String theory seemed to ‘tie it all together’ (forgive the pun). But soon
we realized superstrings required multiple dimensions and we joined a ‘wild goose
chase’, ‘running a rabbit’, or whatever colorful metaphor you wish to employ. We were
chasing something that didn’t exist.. Namely, the Higgs. That’s what the LHC is all about.
That’s why I chose to ‘deadvocate’ it. There are other projects much more deserving,
ITER for one. That’s the international fusion prototype. Look it up; your tax dollars are
much better spent there.

Just today, after many years of educating my family about systems and physics concepts,
my father proclaimed “That’s crazy! That’s a copout!” after I taught him what virtual
particles, non-locality, and conventional acceptance of them entailed. He could not
believe his ears. He could not believe that convention could swallow, hook, line, and
sinker, such ridiculous concepts. I professed “They have no alternative..” and indeed they
do not – within convention. It’s sadly unfortunate that I don’t belong to convention, am
dismissed by convention, am basically ignored..

We don’t need to write an expose of the ‘why’ I don’t belong. It simply is. Think of me as
a ‘black sheep’ among wolves. I look like a wolf, but I don’t act like one. I most certainly
don’t act like a sheep. So, they can’t decide to: eat me, ignore me, or what? The ‘wolves’
are the rest of the physics community. The ‘white sheep’ surrounding us – is you. (Please
forgive the analogy.) You don’t realize it, but the wolves prey on you and your
complacency. You assume the wolves know what they’re doing because after all: they’re
the hunters surrounding your civilization, are they not? They use jargon and math you
cannot understand. They confuse you and eek out your tax dollars (or perhaps grab your
entire wallets in the case of the LHC). They demand your adoration and respect.. All the
while, reaching behind you towards your wallet. Are you going to let them ‘pull the wool
over your eyes’? Are you going to let them take your hard earned tax dollars?

Please consider not. Please try to read the following two essays. The first is a quick
survey of Higgs alternatives. The second is a petition for engineers, technicians, and
advocates against Higgs bosons, models that include them, and models that include
virtual particles or non-locality. (In other words, against the conventional ‘physics
fantasy’ currently employed.)

Higgsless Models Become More Attractive

GeV ranges for allowable Higgs:

Theory:
Supersymmetry models predict: 120-1000
Corrections approach of SM: 129-285
Experiment:
Fermilab: 170+
LHC: -1000+
So Fermilab has already excluded the lower range of
allowable Higgs. This is significant. The higher experiment
‘pushes the range’, the less likely theory is correct. This
means Higgsless models become more attractive. (Source of
above data: Wikipedia, Higgs boson.)

Alternatives to Higgs:
Strongly interacting dynamics:
Technicolor models
Abbott-Farhi models
Top quark condensate
Higgsless models:
Moose models
Z0+TC-VP-NL

The first set of alternatives is listed on the same source

as above. The second set (first item) is from “Higgsless
Models”, p407-427 of a Workshop on CP Studies.. by CERN
published in ’06. The last alternative is ‘my baby’:
impedance of space plus temporal curvature minus virtual
particles minus non-locality. It is important to note: QFT
contains QPT implies VP: quantum field theory contains
quantum perturbation theory implies virtual particles.
(Source: Wikipedia, Virtual particle.)

So the burden becomes: provide viable alternatives to VP

and NL. Quantum chemistry provides a practical alternative:
density functional theory. When implemented on computers,
this approach satisfies both deficits. Multi-state systems
and atom-atom interaction can be simulated with arbitrarily
high precision. My proposal is that density functions
represent space-time-averages of electron distributions. As
was the problem from QM inception, we cannot observe
individual electrons because any observation disturbs them.
Also, individual electrons possess unknowable
characteristics that can affect behavior. I propose an
alternative to the SM electron: a non-local entity capable
of sensing its ‘life-path’ environment. Viable alternative:
a stable mini-dynamical system with an extended component
that appears to cause self-interference. Also, symmetrical
decay processes appear to exhibit non-locality. This is a
fully deterministic and local theory without the need for
virtual particles.

The Case for an Engineering Approach Toward Unification

10/FEB/2009
Engineers must be practical otherwise customers will not buy their products and services.
We are trained to be practical both by universities and experience. Our equations and
models might not be the most elegant, but they work. They have to work from necessity.
As physics is the core science, so systems theory is our core discipline. Systems
integrates concepts across disciplines from electrical to pneumatic to mechanical. Control
and linear systems theory play important roles in this. But so does the principle called the
systems approach. It is essentially a set of four perspectives which may have to be
invoked iteratively, recursively, or both: boundary, feasibility, reliability, and
maintenance. It is a holistic principle, but it is more. It recognizes that brute reduction
does not always work alone. It is an attempt to discover the synthesis in systems which
produces more than the sum of the parts. It is an engineering attempt to utilize our
creativity, intuition, insight, and inspiration to develop robust designs.

Typically, engineers and technicians work for physicists in creating machines such as the
LHC (Large Hadron Collider). Incidentally, that machine may be the most expensive
from human history. We appreciate the work and confidence you have in us. And in
reality, we find the following essay most distasteful in practice. We regret to say that you
may be ‘running a rabbit’ (chasing something that may not exist). The Higgs boson may
not exist. In addition, the application of reduction so ubiquitously, such as with forces and
virtual exchange, has caused physics to become sidetracked and lost in a forest of
misapplied concepts and assumptions. Specifically, the concepts of virtual exchange,
virtual particles, and non-locality have dragged the physics community down a path of
confusion, wastefulness, and downright delusion.

We, as engineers, don’t know what a magnetic field is – but we certainly know how one
behaves – and we certainly know it is not made of virtual photons. The magnetic field is
real. To us, there is no such thing as virtual anything. The concept is an intellectual crutch
for ignorance. To state otherwise is deception. We agree it may be a clever intellectual
crutch, but a crutch is a crutch. Again, we are forced to be practical. We use the concept
of impedance to denote the summary characteristic of media that determines its
permeability and permittivity. It is not artificial. It is a practical concern. We cannot
design RF circuits without considering impedance. Impedance is a fact of our practice
and practicality. Further, we recognize a factor called the impedance of space, denoted Z0.
This is a kind of base value, substrate, or baseline for all others. All permeabilities are
gauged with respect to the permeability of space. All permittivities are gauged with
respect to the permittivity of space. Therefore, all impedances are gauged with respect to
the impedance of space. The impedance of space holds prime importance in engineering.
It is a basic quality of space with the same importance as dimensionality. To insist
otherwise is to deny reality.

We recognize that Occam’s Razor is a fundamental principle in science. Nature does not
have to obey it, but we should. It states that: all things being equal, the theory with the
least number of assumptions (the simplest theory) tends to be the correct one. It is the
intellectual knife of science to cut away ‘fatty theories’ (fat being the theories with
excessive assumptions). We employ it in this essay.
Let us restate the basic/core assumptions of convention (the Standard Model):
1. quantum self-interference is caused by non-locality
2. multi-state atoms/nuclei are exactly that
3. forces are caused by virtual exchange of force carrying particles

Let us state some plausible alternative assumptions more in line with engineering
principles and determinism:
1. quantum self-interference is caused by extended portions of the standing waves
comprising elementary particles
2. multi-state atoms/nuclei are actually different representations (distinct instances)
of possible equivalent energy states
3. there are two distinct forces in our universe: electromagnetic and another
‘mediated’ by temporal curvature

Before we compare assumptions, allow me to discuss temporal curvature. Please allow

me to copy-paste a section from a previous paper that was ‘less formal’ about the same
subjects.

What is my explanation of the ‘weak force’? To me, there are three things that define a
nucleus: vibration, rotation, and geometry/arrangement. What tends to rip/push apart a
nucleus: electrostatic repulsion between protons. The only reason protons can ‘live’ near
each other in such close proximity are because of the ‘adhesive force’ from neutrons and
the three nuclear characteristics listed above. We don’t know when an unstable nucleus
formed; we don’t know its geometry; we don’t know its rotation or vibration; we know
nothing about internal characteristics of any particular nucleus. Therefore, it could decay
at seemingly random intervals determined by: when it was formed and the three
unknowable nuclear characteristics. To me, the ‘weak force’ is not a force – it is simply
electrostatic repulsion combined with the four unknowable nuclear characteristics.

So, in a sense, I have just unified electromagnetism (in my own way) with the ‘weak
force’. Step one .. Now we will unify the ‘strong force’ with gravity. I contend the strong
force is not mediated by gluons. That’s an unnecessary artifice. The strong force is what I
call: ‘near field’ temporal curvature. And gravitation is ‘far field’ temporal curvature. In
the process of investigating ‘my model’ of elementary particles, I have discovered that
gravitation can be modeled and described by ‘distributed temporal curvature’. We don’t
actually need space-curvature to explain gravity. So this is why I said GR was a step in
the right direction. The bottom line here is that distributed curvature ONLY IN TIME is
sufficient to FULLY DESCRIBE gravitation. Again, virtual exchange of particles is not
required. It’s unnecessary. Temporal curvature is minimally sufficient to explain ‘strong
force’ and gravitation. Of course, you need a function (math description) to describe the
exact radial curvature with respect to a proton/electron. Many conventionalists would
balk at this point: “That’s artificial! That’s more assumptions!”, but I contend – less than
theirs.
At this point, we have unified ‘electro-weak’ and ‘strong-gravity’. Can we go further? I
contend they are fundamentally different and so – we cannot. Electro-weak is based on
electromagnetism. Strong-gravity is based on temporal curvature. They are fundamentally
different things. Is there some energy level where they appear the same? That’s like
saying: you’re juggling apples and oranges – the faster you juggle them – the more they
appear like a blur of apples and oranges. But that does not change the fact they are
DISTINCT and very DIFFERENT fruit.

As far as requirements to ‘stretch the imagination’, isn’t 5 better than 11 dimensions?

One universe vs many? Temporal curvature and photons vs 5 virtual particles? Instances
of equal-energy states vs multi-state systems? Extended waves vs non-local particles?
The latter requires you to stretch and Stretch and STRETCH your imagination beyond
rationality. The problem with ‘physics of today’ is not just reduction and fantasy – but
‘back patting’ and reward for promulgating the status quo. As long as you reinforce
convention, your ‘research’ will be rewarded with either money, accolades, or status (or
all 3). That’s why I will never be funded, praised, or recognized for proclaiming the truth
– I threaten the illegitimacy of conventional physics.

That ends my copy-paste from the previous paper. Of course, there are deeper
assumptions hidden within both sets of three above. The paragraph just above attempts to
address those. Convention knows better than I the full account of assumptions and
parameters associated with the Standard Model. The assumptions and general
specifications of parameters associated with this engineering model are listed above.
There is one however that is not: hyper-time. It is the quality of space-time which must
exist for this model to be real.

This engineering model of our universe is assumed to be sufficient to describe elementary

particles and their interactions. It is based on: 3 dimensional Euclidean space, the
impedance of space, temporal curvature, and hyper-time (which allows temporal
curvature). If this model is correct, we live in an exceedingly simple and elegant universe
where elementary particles are dual manifestations of energy residing in an extended
‘electromagnetic wave packet’ and localized temporal curvature.

We, the undersigned, representing the engineering community, challenge the physics
community to an ‘intellectual duel’: develop a simpler, more concise, more elegant, and
more realistic model of our universe. We appreciate the business and confidence
associated with projects such as the LHC, but we feel resources are better spent on
projects more aligned with reality and needs of humanity.

Letter to David de Hilster:

Dear David,

I want to support your cause, but at the moment – I have no job, no income, and no
assets. :( I was about to fill out the non-disclosure agreement but .. I have no funds to
allocate/promise. :(
But :) I DID write a special essay that relates directly to your documentary. I will include
it with this cover letter. My language gets ‘foul’ at certain points so prepare yourself. I do
not mince words – I’m so TIRED of doing that.. I’m so tired of ‘tiptoeing around egos’
for what??? Do they care about my feelings???

I agree with your basic premise – to show how idiotic conventional physics has become.
But, I have some important points I disagree with here (in this cover). True, Einstein is
‘the star’ / the messiah / the savior / the 2nd Newton of modern physics and so I
understand why you ‘go after him’. But.. I personally think his ideas have merit
(especially GR and SR – as you will see in my essay). There are reasons I support some
of his ideas. They are steps toward a rational and deterministic unification in physics.

I know it makes good ‘airplay’ to go after Einstein but the real culprits are: Feynman and
the Standard Model (which I ‘go after’ in my essay). I understand ‘going after’ the
Standard Model does not get much attention (like going after Einstein) .. It is rather
boring compared to ‘bringing down the star of physics’. But it has benefits (as you will
see if you read the essay). Going after the Standard Model includes going after things like
the LHC which is probably the most expensive single machine humanity has ever built.
But it is a FRAUD.

Long ago, I actually supported construction on the LHC. I supported it because ‘physics
is physics’ and I supported any research into physics. But later – I found out the true
purpose of the machine and realized – the money could be better spent elsewhere.. Hell,
they could have built two or three fusion prototypes for the price-tag of the LHC. :(

So where are we now? What will they DO with the LHC after they DON’T discover the
Higgs??? Weapon? Try in vain to find some short-lived particles??? What a freaking
waste. :(

I LOVE discovery. I LOVE investment in science/future. But.. The LHC seems more like
convention trying to justify idiotic theories – more than anything else. :( It breaks my
heart how many lives / brilliant minds / dollar-resources were WASTED on it.. Please
God – help us spend our dollars more wisely in the future. Please help us reveal Truth.

Hyper-time
Machine Consciousness
and the Systems Approach
salvatore gerard micheal

Preface

What do time, consciousness, and the systems approach have in common? Is this essay
about some unified theory of consciousness and physics? NO. And I do not endorse such
theories. This essay, as my previous publications, relies on the core (and presently
neglected) concept in science called Occam’s Razor. That is basically an intellectual knife
with the purpose to cut away theories with excessive assumptions. But you need more
than Occam’s Razor to ‘do’ good science. It requires creativity, inspiration, and insight.
Now, we may never understand these qualities, but thank God – we have them. And yes –
I believe in God. I do so NOT out of insecurity or need – but because I happen to see the
‘signature of God everywhere’ I look. Am I projecting this ‘wishful thinking’ onto our
universe? I don’t think so. It’s there. You just need to know where to look and HOW to
look. But this essay is not about God’s signature; this essay is about using Occam’s
Razor, human creativity, inspiration, insight, and the systems approach to ATTACK two
problems we have faced for about 100 years. Those two fascinating problems are:
machine consciousness and ‘four forces unification’ in physics. Many will proclaim me
insane or fringe because I threaten their livelihood or ego or both. But I do more than
that: I proclaim ‘modern physicists’ are FRAUDS. And ‘computer scientists’ are no
better: EGOMANIACS.

If you say “Those are fightin’ words”, you’d be absolutely correct. I challenge both
physicists and computer scientists to an ‘intellectual duel’. I challenge both of them to
produce a simpler, more elegant, more concise, more explanatory, more realistic, and
more ‘common sensical’ theory of consciousness and force-unification. Again, my ideas
are not based on fringe or insane concepts – THEY ARE BASED ON SOUND, TRIED
AND TRUE, ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES. What is the systems
approach? I will teach you. Open this paper. Let us begin.

My Qualifications

No, I do not have a PhD in physics. No, I do not have a doctorate in computer science.
But what I DO have is more valuable than both: mentors. Who were my mentors? Many:
Rudy Rucker, Socrates, Da Vinci,.. Need I go on? Do I claim those people were actually
my personal mentors? Obviously a gnat could comprehend this: NO.

I happen to have some formal education which makes me more than qualified to
comprehend the enormity of ‘my two chosen’ problems: BS in probability and statistics
with dual major in psychology, approximately half an MS in systems science, and many
graduate coursework in other engineering areas. I have taken and passed coursework on
quantum chemistry – so I understand the principles and concepts behind modern quantum
mechanics. I also understand the inadequacies and ‘concepts clash’ of various parts of the
Standard Model (this is the conventional hodge-podge of theories, ‘experimental
evidence’, ideas, concepts, and math that comprise the accepted paradigm in physics).

A note about ‘the messenger’ (me): I’m not God, I don’t claim to have God’s vision, I’m
not the reincarnation of Einstein (although he was another mentor of mine), I’m not some
egomaniac touting impossible theories or ideas,.. My name is Sam Micheal. My parents
are retired teachers. But that does not define them – JUST AS MY QUALIFICATIONS
DO NOT DEFINE/LIMIT ME.

The best of ‘me’ is not me: my son’s name is Arthur, my wife’s name is Yui,.. They are
the light of my life. They give me reason to live. They are so full of life and joy. If you
met them, I would have to fight you for them – for you would want them. I have never
met two more enchanting people than Arthur and Yui.

I wrote a poem the other day based on a scene in Babylon AD. Some of you might say
“It’s not a poem.” or “He’s stupid.” Well, this is what I say to that: FUCK YOU. You
want to denigrate/dismiss/demoralize me? You don’t exist. You are God’s nightmare. And
when God wakes up, you will disappear like a fart in the wind.

I am the tiger staring back at you from inside the cage. To you – I’m a curiosity. To me –
you are food. You see me panting – my breath stinging the air. Remove these bars; we
will see who is king of the jungle. Foolish child – it is you who is inside a cage.
Everything you do is a cage for your mind and spirit. The cage is inverted yet you cannot
see it. It is you who is inside the cage; open it; free yourself.

I’m not TRYING to be profound. I’m not TRYING to be anything. I’m being very
LITERAL in the ‘poem’. We live in a cage. The cage is our ASSUMPTIONS. The only
way to break free – is to ATTACK OUR OWN ASSUMPTIONS. This is true for both
problems.

I’m sorry to have to be so ‘point blank’ but .. I have had to deal with SUCH ego and
INSECURITY in my discussions with professors, educators, ‘researchers’, ‘dissidents’,
and ‘friends’ .. People who’s only resort is to dismiss me and label me crazy. Why?
Again, I threaten their livelihoods/security/egos by proclaiming they are ALL FRAUDS.

You see, if they convince you ‘they know what they’re talking about’ by using jargon and
math ‘above your head’, you ASSUME THEY KNOW WHAT THEY’RE TALKING
ABOUT. But it is not-so-clever deception. It is a con. It is fraud.

Now, I’m not saying EVERYONE in physics and computer science are frauds – just the
ones who want your money to perform their ‘research’ to ‘validate’ their silly ideas. LIKE
THE LHC – THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER in Geneva, Switzerland. Don’t get me
wrong – it’s a wonderful international endeavor – to work together for a common goal –
developing some interesting technology that may be used for say NUCLEAR FUSION.
But the purpose of the LHC is to detect these non-existent particles euphemistically
called ‘God particles’ or Higgs bosons. These are HYPOTHETICAL particles that are
supposedly exchanged between ‘real’ particles which when exchanged, give mass. It’s
insane. It was originally made up ‘ad hoc’ to explain some feature of the Standard Model
that didn’t quite make sense to conventional physicists.

Reduction, in science, is the process of ‘breaking down’ a problem into parts – solving
them individually – then combining those solutions to form a ‘grand unified’ solution.
But.. the parts may not work together. They may have incompatibilities. This is the basic
problem with the Standard Model. We have used reduction so faithfully, it has led us
down a ‘blind alley’ where we cannot see where we are going – or the fact it’s a DEAD
END.
Dead end means – no resolution in sight. No unifying principle to ‘make things work’.
Why? Is it because GR (general relativity) is wrong??? NO! General relativity is
PERFECT! It is a step toward unification of forces. Another step is SR (special
relativity). The third and final step is proposed in this essay.

Breaking Down the Standard Model

In an argument, you don’t win by showing evidence supporting your claim is correct. You
win by showing your opponent’s assumptions are incorrect. Of course after that, you
show off your creativity by proposing your alternative. This is what we do with the
Standard Model. There are three basic assumptions in the Standard Model, but they are so
well hidden – you have to ‘dig and dig and dig’ to find them.

1. quantum self-interference is caused by non-locality

2. multi-state atoms/nuclei are exactly that
3. forces are caused by virtual exchange of force carrying particles

Feynman was a Genius, but he was deluded by convention to swallow and regurgitate
conventional idiocy. He did his part to ‘establish’ the Standard Model by showing off his
math prowess: by developing QED (quantum electrodynamics) and PI-QM (path-integral
quantum mechanics). Feynman was a genius. Feynman was a Genius. Feynman was a
GENIUS. I CANNOT DISPUTE THAT. But..

All he really did was devise math frameworks to DEVELOP or ‘flesh out’ those three
assumptions above. HE DID NOT PROVE THEM CORRECT. THIS IS CRITICAL TO
UNDERSTAND.

Now in this essay, I cannot prove his logic was inconsistent – or even that the
assumptions above are mutually inconsistent. They are likely mutually consistent.
Feynman’s logic is likely flawless .. Pondering 1 and 2 above for a moment shows me
they are interdependent on the concept of non-locality. But three is somewhat
independent of the others and is ‘caused’ by our rabid tenacity / ‘death grip’ on reduction.
(Or, we could think of it as an indestructible ball-and-chain/yoke.) Reduction is so much
a part of modern science – it permeates it and ‘infuses’ it with ‘life’ and ‘vigor’. Really it
is death and stagnation. Our only salvation is the systems approach. The systems
approach is more than holism. It is a combination/recursion/iteration of four perspectives:
boundary, feasibility, reliability, and maintenance. I will not teach you the full-blown
systems approach now. I will save that for later. What we need to investigate now are
those three assumptions above.

Let’s start with number 3: forces are caused by virtual exchange of force carrying
particles. What does it mean? What does it imply? It means the Standard Model supposes
gravity is caused by gravitons, strong force is caused by gluons, electromagnetic force is
caused by photons, and weak force is .. ‘the W and Z bosons’. Fairly recently, the last two
were theoretically united into ‘electro-weak’ so convention no longer has to unite four
forces – now it is three. But again, this does not PROVE their assumptions are correct; all
it does is theoretically unify their concepts to a degree.

What is my explanation of the ‘weak force’? To me, there are three things that define a
nucleus: vibration, rotation, and geometry/arrangement. What tends to rip/push apart a
nucleus: electrostatic repulsion between protons. The only reason protons can ‘live’ near
each other in such close proximity are because of the ‘adhesive force’ from neutrons and
the three nuclear characteristics listed above. We don’t know when an unstable nucleus
formed; we don’t know its geometry; we don’t know its rotation or vibration; we know
nothing about internal characteristics of any particular nucleus. Therefore, it could decay
at seemingly random intervals determined by: when it was formed and the three
unknowable nuclear characteristics. To me, the ‘weak force’ is not a force – it is simply
electrostatic repulsion combined with the four unknowable nuclear characteristics.

So, in a sense, I have just unified electromagnetism (in my own way) with the ‘weak
force’. Step one .. Now we will unify the ‘strong force’ with gravity. I contend the strong
force is not mediated by gluons. That’s an unnecessary artifice. The strong force is what I
call: ‘near field’ temporal curvature. And gravitation is ‘far field’ temporal curvature. In
the process of investigating ‘my model’ of elementary particles, I have discovered that
gravitation can be modeled and described by ‘distributed temporal curvature’. We don’t
actually need space-curvature to explain gravity. So this is why I said GR was a step in
the right direction. The bottom line here is that distributed curvature ONLY IN TIME is
sufficient to FULLY DESCRIBE gravitation. Again, virtual exchange of particles is not
required. It’s unnecessary. Temporal curvature is minimally sufficient to explain ‘strong
force’ and gravitation. Of course, you need a function (math description) to describe the
exact radial curvature with respect to a proton/electron. Many conventionalists would
balk at this point: “That’s artificial! That’s more assumptions!”, but I contend – less than
theirs.

At this point, we have unified ‘electro-weak’ and ‘strong-gravity’. Can we go further? I

contend they are fundamentally different and so – we cannot. Electro-weak is based on
electromagnetism. Strong-gravity is based on temporal curvature. They are fundamentally
different things. Is there some energy level where they appear the same? That’s like
saying: you’re juggling apples and oranges – the faster you juggle them – the more they
appear like a blur of apples and oranges. But that does not change the fact they are
DISTINCT and very DIFFERENT fruit.

It should be clear that ‘my ideas’ do not propose ‘free energy’, extra energy, alternate
energy, or any other form of silliness frequently advocated today. This is not a scam to get
you to invest your hard earned dollars into it. This is about honesty, integrity, simplicity,
and realism.

Now of course, I must propose alternatives to the three assumptions above. If I don’t (if
all I do is criticize), then I’m not worth the salts in my body. Let me try:
 1. quantum self-interference is caused by extended portions of the standing waves
comprising elementary particles
2. multi-state atoms/nuclei are actually different representations (distinct instances)
of possible equivalent energy states
3. there are two distinct forces in our universe: electromagnetic and another
‘mediated’ by temporal curvature

Deep within those assumptions is another: space-time ‘rests’ in another dimension which
allows temporal curvature. So we have 5 dimensions in our universe. Two are unseen:
time and hyper-time. Just remember, you saw it here first. ;)

Before we discuss the other assumptions of convention, let me make a few predictions
based on ‘my theory’: we will never detect the Higgs because it doesn’t exist – and – we
will never detect gravitons because they don’t exist. Photons are packets of
electromagnetic energy. In engineering, we identify them with the TEW (transverse
electromagnetic wave). They have spin, helicity, direction, and two components: electric
and magnetic. They have differing speed through different media. Each media has
different characteristics: permittivity and permeability. Together they form impedance.
EVEN SPACE HAS IMPEDANCE. We call it Z0. THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. IT
IS PART OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING. Don’t throw up; don’t pass out; don’t stop
reading. Please.

Implicit in this discussion is that space has impedance. It is an inherent characteristic of

space. Space is not just 3 dimensions. Now, and this is VERY important: THIS IS NOT
AN ETHER THEORY. This Is Not An Ether Theory. This is not an ether theory. Many
will say “Sam, it is equivalent to an ether theory – so it is!” Wrong. Just because I was
trained as an engineer and borrow some concepts from engineering, does not make it an
ether theory! :( This is not an ether theory! :( This is an engineering theory of matter!

Does it make me arrogant to propose? After all, I’m not a PhD. I’m not even a physicist.
:( Here we return to the ego thing. Physicists cannot endure being ‘told what to think’ by
anyone ‘outside’ physics. But it has been proven time and time again: progress, in the
modern world, is made by synthesis or SHIFT OF PERSPECTIVE. One or both. Physics
is STUCK. Everyone recognizes this: physicists, non-physicists, alternative physicists,
engineers,.. Everyone. Do we stand in place ‘spinning our wheels’??? What a waste..
Let’s make some progress! :) Let’s put our assumptions aside for a ‘moment’. :) Let’s
consider the implications of some viable alternative assumptions! :)

My bottom line here; my final point is: resources: human and Earth. Do we REALLY
want to waste resources/lives/brilliant minds on: looking for the ‘God particle’ when it
does not even exist!?!? What a WASTE! :( If they don’t find the ‘God particle’, what can
they use the LHC for??? A weapon? EVEN MORE WASTE! :(

The LHC is a perfect example of modern physics and the folly of modern man. They
most certainly won’t find the Higgs, but they will find something. Then they will say
“See! We found something important!” and attempt to justify the BILLIONS spent on the
machine. It’s insane! Just insane! A bunch of egomaniacs puffed up by their own illusions
of their self-importance – spending BILLIONS OF DOLLARS on a thing that won’t find
its intended purpose! :( It just boggles my mind – the level of idiocy and arrogance we
are capable of.. :(

Enough ranting and raving .. I think I have made my points. Convention has made certain
clever/idiotic assumptions. The nature of assumptions is that you cannot prove/disprove
them (they must be taken on faith). It’s like the existence of God: God exists or does not
exist – there is no ‘in between’. You believe or you don’t believe. You can say ‘maybe’,
but it is riding the fence – no progress was ever made by riding the fence. If you were
wrong, you graciously admit it and move on. If you were right, you graciously admit it
and move on. Either way, you move on.

My point about assumptions is: there are realistic ones and there are ones that resemble
fantasy. 11 dimensions, parallel universes, virtual particles, multi-state systems, non-
locality,.. THESE are more fantasy like. My proposals are deterministic. Sure, many say
“determinism is dead”, but.. It is more like the imagination associated with determinism
is dead. Determinism is ‘alive and well’ and most likely – how our universe actually
operates. As Einstein so aptly put it (paraphrased): we just don’t get it.

Before we leave physics and delve into consciousness, I must address the other two
assumptions of convention. The first assumption listed above: quantum self-interference
is caused by non-locality – is there because of the centrality of one critical/crucial
experiment: the ‘infamous’ double-slit experiment. The astounding results of the
experiment seemed to leave ‘no escape’ for determinism (from elimination): it seems that
single photons/electrons/nuclei can self-interfere via a double-slit arrangement which
appears inconceivable/unexplainable deterministically. My explanation was evidently
dismissed many years ago. Perhaps it was the inconsistency of point-particle with
extended effects.. Whatever the case, my proposal was dismissed and non-locality ‘won
the day’. The other assumption: multi-state atoms/nuclei are exactly that – is a kind of
extension of non-locality. If electrons can behave as if they are many places at once, they
most certainly can behave that way in orbit. Nuclei can behave similarly. So, non-locality
and virtual particles appear to require less assumptions on the part of convention – BUT
(and this is a BIG BUT), it requires you to assume virtual exchange for EVERY physical
operation/process. :( This is TOO MUCH for me.. :( Virtual exchange .. Non-locality ..
They sound more like voodoo than science to me.. When will we ever return to science;
when will we ever return to rationality; when will we ever return to realism. :(

As far as requirements to ‘stretch the imagination’, isn’t 5 better than 11 dimensions?

One universe vs many? Temporal curvature and photons vs 5 virtual particles? Instances
of equal-energy states vs multi-state systems? Extended waves vs non-local particles?
The latter requires you to stretch and Stretch and STRETCH your imagination beyond
rationality. :( The problem with ‘physics of today’ is not just reduction and fantasy – but
‘back patting’ and reward for promulgating the status quo. As long as you reinforce
convention, your ‘research’ will be rewarded with either money, accolades, or status (or
all 3). That’s why I will never be funded, praised, or recognized for proclaiming the truth
– I threaten the illegitimacy of conventional physics. :(

This last section may sound silly but.. I have faith someday my words will be vindicated.
Most likely not in my lifetime but someday.. Truth has a way of exposing itself
(humorously – like a ‘flasher’ exposing himself). To me, one name of God is Truth. God
will reveal Itself in due time.. In due time..

Letter to Dr. Hawking:

Dear Sam (Dr. Hawking’s assistant),

My previous letter was not attacking Dr. Hawking in any way. It was not trying to accuse
him of being atheist or anything silly like that.

I have a couple of analogies that I'd like to express:

1. imagine you are trying to fly but cannot - you are tethered to the earth, you keep
beating your wings in vain, you cannot escape the tether
2. imagine a baby desperately clinging to its mother's breast, it suckles and cannot
conceive of anything else - mom is the baby's universe
3. imagine a baby inside its mom; mom is in fact the baby's universe at that time; there is
no way out; there is no 'outside'; there is only warm 'inside mom'; further a cord connects
baby to mom

Three different analogies for the same thing: Standard Model assumptions.

We cannot escape our assumptions while we think in terms of the Standard Model.

Unfortunately, unification will only come from 'outside' the Standard Model (outside
Standard Model assumptions).

This is the only way to proceed.

I just had this conversation with my 82 year old mother. Dr. Hawking could be the one
who 'transforms physics' if he only opened his mind to me.

If he let go the Standard Model assumptions just for 'a moment'.

I will explain.

My ideas are based on engineering principles. In Germany, there is a gentleman

researcher Markus Lazar. He has developed the formalisms of my model. I have
developed the concepts (independently of Dr. Lazar). I was lucky to find him. He has not
corresponded with me at length. He has not confirmed our unknown 'collaboration'. But,
both of us have some interesting points: elementary particle duality such that they are
elastic deformations in space-time as well as vortices of electromagnetic energy. This is
one view - the engineering view.

Since then, I have worked on the space required for such a 'thing'. I have ended up with a
5D space which was the simplest form I could invent which still preserved the essence of
our models. It is a 3D Euclidean space plus fully complex time (encoding local
impedance) plus temporal curvature (light speed normalized): Mi = (x, y, z, Zt, C) where
Z is a complex number representing impedance at point (x, y, z) and C is the temporal
curvature at the same. I named it Mi = Micheal space in honor of my father, W. Jean
Micheal.

There is now a contested Wikipedia page: Micheal_space which is 'headed for deletion'.
I'm a member of NPA (natural philosophy alliance) and I'm sure Dr. Hawking is familiar
with it.

Because I don't have the skills of Dr. Hawking or Dr. Feynman, I have not been able to
determine all the theoretical consequences of the model.

I have proposed some simulations and experimental investigations (stated on the Wiki
page).

I have also not worked on the structure (as compared to Minkowski space) since that is
not my area of expertise (my area is systems science and probability).

Should I list out Standard Model assumptions compared to 'my' assumptions? Perhaps
so..

Let us restate the basic/core assumptions of convention (the Standard Model):

1. quantum self-interference is caused by non-locality

2. multi-state atoms/nuclei are exactly that
3. forces are caused by virtual exchange of force carrying particles

Let us state some plausible alternative assumptions more in line with engineering
principles and determinism:

1. quantum self-interference is caused by extended portions of the standing waves

comprising elementary particles
2. multi-state atoms/nuclei are actually different representations (distinct instances)
of possible equivalent energy states
3. there are two distinct forces in our universe: electromagnetic and another
‘mediated’ by temporal curvature

Now, .. That's enough for now.. I do not want to burden you or Dr. Hawking with 'my
ideas'. I think that's about as simply as I can 'state my case'. Please consider it. Please
allow Dr. Hawking to consider my ideas.
Sincerely, Sam Micheal

Letter to WorldCitizen group:

i've been sorta begging my father to share ideas so i could share with the forum..

finally, he shared with me his thots about world gov't..

he's 86 years old and has some very good ideas..

1. US senator / World Senate term limits (6/4 years? i don't know - just something much
less than lifetime limits)

2. 10 year constitutions to be renewed / totally redone every 10 years

3. simple majority system

4. no more special interest / lobby stuff (this is his personal view and he says - each
constitution should decide what they want)

5. a hierarchical 'Swiss' style election system where governors/representatives are chosen

based on success at lower levels

it sounds very (perhaps too) simplistic but .. he has a Lot of wisdom in those words .. he
says this could be done in the US and also for the world .. i believe him .. i had to ask him
many questions to get the statements above 'out of him' so .. if you have any questions,
post them here and i will try to tabulate them for him .. he is after all, 86 years old..

so .. can we try it? why don't we create a 'bill of rights' and vote on it .. or we could try to
create a constitution here and vote on it..

the previous suggestion about groups was interesting but .. my father contends we cannot
focus on special interest groups .. we have to let a simple majority rule.

if it doesn't work, we change it in 10 years - every 10 years - write a new constitution if

we have to.. adapt to the times - is the idea..

:) sam :)

Letter to WorldCitizen:
Subject: a new world currency
Dear friends,
I’ve had another discussion with my father about ‘world politics’. In case you missed it
last time, his name is W. Jean Micheal. He was quite surprised by a development in our
conversation. He wanted me to post this letter. He suggested a new world currency
(money). The idea is based on a UPS system taken into BellSouth which has become
ATT. My experiences with it were for BellSouth. The concept is called a ‘work unit’. It
represents an hour of your time at work/home/fulfilling your function. For instance, a
mom who takes care of her kids at home would ‘rack up’ work units for taking care of her
kids. I assume these would accrue in her ‘bank account’ which would be tabulated
automatically based on how many hours she stays at home with her kids each day. So
mothers would automatically accrue work units. So would people with jobs. The problem
becomes: how do you assign different ‘rates’ between jobs? My father suggested a
constitutional committee previously democratically elected (every 10 years as previously
specified in another letter). These must adapt to the times. It is assumed medical doctors
would accrue work units faster than technicians faster than ‘ditch diggers’. That would
have to be decided by constitutional committee or by full democratic vote. The other
issue that automatically arose in our conversation was: intellectual property creators
(such as writers). You cannot assign a ‘work unit’ to a writer’s time. Suppose a writer
produced something highly valuable to society but not immediately recognized. You
cannot wait for the 50 years or so before it is fully appreciated (such as in my case). My
father suggested ‘ministers of culture’ to decide worth. Now, that is a HUGE
responsibility (to judge work unit value of intellectual property). Just think about how
valuable these writings are. ;) Just being silly. ;) But I think you sense my point. These
so-called ministers must be democratically elected or hired for their proficiency in
accurate judgment. If I have just written a new blockbuster screenplay (but I am an
unknown screenwriter), I want that recognized for the worth / intrinsic value to humanity.
I want my son Arthur to benefit from it. (This is actually a real-life scenario.) Of
course my recent screenplay, The Avatar, was dismissed by everyone – I’m an unknown
author. I have other great ideas on the simmer burners: a wonderful hybrid vehicle, two
practical / leisure sailplanes, two great movie scripts, and of course – a ____ load of
physics concepts totally ignored by convention. I think many of my products are
undervalued by civilization. I hope that ‘future minister of culture’ recognizes my ‘work
unit’ contributions. ;) Enuf ‘silliness’ (not really silliness when you consider Arthur). My
father wanted you (the world) to consider the ‘work unit’ concept as a form of ‘world
currency’. Perhaps this is one of the transformations Jay Weidner and George Ure keep
talking about..

Rejected Letters

I’m a member of several online forums where we can post interesting articles/whatever
with appropriate subjects – as long as they fit the subject areas and we are not offensive
or profane in our posts. Unfortunately, I was ‘banned’ (to a degree – not officially
removed but all of my posts are now rejected) from one group because of three reasons: I
posted controversial ideas about consciousness, I defended myself publicly there when
attacked and dismissed, and I pleaded for support about my wife’s visa application there.
Bottom line there for me is: isn’t family reunification a little more important than alien
conspiracies? The moderator evidently disagreed. That’s cold and inhuman – maybe they
work for Lizard Kings. ;)
Admittedly, I was very critical of this ‘new age stuff’ many times – criticizing the ‘new
thing’ where people are trying to connect consciousness and the ‘new physics’ .. It’s all
fantasy to me – the physics and the connection to mind/consciousness. Pure fantasy. One
of my letters/essays deals with this .. The problem with rejecting my letters is this: in a
way, I’m an instance of a ‘conscience for humankind’. I’m the guy who says “Hey, wait a
minute, not so fast..” when we start down a crazy/stupid/silly path. I’m sure there are
many of me, but.. My voice is important for these times. You can call me Cassandra, or
Hari Seldon, or Ass Wipe or anything silly you want. Just don’t call me crazy; I will
prove you wrong and likely show you are. Many people today are getting startled into
awakening from a slumber – this past complacency for the status quo. Most people are on
a kind of ‘auto pilot’ – just doing what’s required to get by. The time they are ‘real’ is
when they wake up – having a fight with their spouse or child. But usually, their ego is
fighting and they are on the wrong side. When they really wake up is when they ask for
forgiveness from their spouse/child and realize they were wrong. We all need to wake up.

The new President Obama just had a media conference yesterday and my father was
crying because he seemed to be the first President in many years to really Care about our
nation. But.. One question about Iran seemed to provoke him to ‘take a stand’ against
Iran. And just today, someone hanged an effigy of him there. Big surprise. Most of us
have such Hope for our new President but.. If he continually sides with Israel and the
Zionists, we will be rapidly heading for WWIII. I love him, but that’s insane.

I joked with my parents: “I’m going to apply for political asylum in Iran.” But it shows
my feelings about the whole thing: WE NEED TO WORK TOGETHER FOR A
COMMON AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURE. We need to find common ground, focus on
that, build on that, and build a brighter future together. So I start my letters with the ones
focused on values..

profundity is in the mind of the beholder

if i was a university professor or high-school teacher (still), i would have one class
devoted to personal values.

this is regardless of the subject - whether it was psychology, engineering, physics, or

English.

believe it or not, i have had engineering courses where we dealt with personal values -
because - 'trying to satisfy the customer' is based on his/her values.

i think it is vitally important we look within, 'figure out' our top 10/20 values, write
them down, rank them, and do it again periodically.

what is the purpose? so we can understand ourselves.. if we don't 'know ourselves', how
can we know/understand others???

maybe we can find a commonality among our core values and use that to bridge
nations, religions, the world..

in the last 9 years, i have found 2 dear friends 'on the net': one is English and is a brilliant
physicist .. the other is Belgian and is a profound thinker/'feeler'. to me, it was truly
miraculous how we met .. but i suppose if you consider the net - fairly 'easy'. do we agree
on most things? i don't think so. the three of us are Very different ppl. but one thing i feel
we agree on - the world needs positive change. not just in physics - but in every social
structure/institution/group. there may come a day soon where we cannot afford to employ
/ pay for our government services. what will we do??? will our society 'go to the dogs' or
will we form 'secure neighborhoods' (where some will resemble concentration camps and
others resemble posh military compounds).

i beg you all - don't do this thing. tonight, when you have time, write down your core
values - let's find common ground before it's too late.

i will list out my top three values because i'm trying to inspire you to do this thing we
need to do.. i have reasons for them being in the top three.. i believe they are absolutely
required for a stable civilization. each has their own reasons for being there.. i'm sure you
can figure them out if you think about them.. i pray to god you come up with your own
list and we can find some common ground before it's too late..

in humility, trust, and respect, sam

core values

core values for an enduring and stable civilization:

humility
trust
respect

'peripheral' values for an enduring and stable civilization:

patience
persistence
curiosity
creativity
compassion
inspiration
insight
intuition
diversity
flexibility
integrity
love

imagine these peripheral values as gods/goddesses or characters in a play:

Patience encourages us to wait. "All good things come to he who waits."
Persistence encourages us to never give up. "Never surrender!" (from Galaxy Quest)
Curiosity always wants to know - to understand. "Why?" (every two year old child asks)
Creativity believes we can always find a solution. The systems approach plus heuristics
together try.
Compassion Cares. If she didn't, who would???
Inspiration is the muse we beg to accompany us. For the lucky ones, she is nearby.
Insight is that "ahah!" we can only wait for..
Intuition is the blur of synthesis your mind creates almost magically.
Diversity should belong to the core values because we need it to survive.
Flexibility is balanced with Integrity in our healthy spirits, bodies, minds, and hearts.
If we live without Love, we have nothing..

in humility, trust, and respect, sam

[The following posted on scribd.com]

[what’s really ‘scary’ is that below could be implemented in a genetic programming
environment and various versions of it could be ‘bred and grown’ producing ‘optimal’
individuals (based on preselected criteria – such as exhibiting truly conscious behavior).
then those individuals could be replicated on dedicated hardware with real senses and
arms in a real local environment.]

[an object oriented problem decomposition of consciousness]

A COnscious MAchine Simulator – ACOMAS

Salvatore Gerard Micheal, modified 15/JAN/09

Objects
2 cross verifying senses (simulated)
hearing (stereo)
seeing (stereo)
motivation subsystem (specs to be determined)
information filters (4 controlled hierarchically)
supervisory symbol register (same as below)
short-term/primary symbol register (8^3 symbols arranged in 8x8x8 array)
rule-base (self verifying and extending)
rule-base symbol register (same as above)
3D visualization register (10^12 bits arranged in 10000x10000x10000 array)
models of reality (at least 2)
morality (unmodifiable and uncircumventable)
don’t steal, kill, lie, or harm
goal list (modifiable, prioritized)
output devices
robotic arms (simulated – 2)
voice-synthesizer and speaker
video display unit
 local environment (simulated)
operator (simulated, controlled by operator)

Purpose
test feasibility of construct for an actual conscious machine
discover timing requirements for working prototype
discover specifications of objects
discover implications/consequences of enhanced intelligence
(humans have 7 short-term symbol registers)
discover implications/consequences of emotionless consciousness

Specifications – The registers are the core of the device – the (qualified) ‘controllers’ of
the system (acting on goal list), the reasoners of the system (identifying rules), but all
constrained by morality. The goal list should be instantaneously modifiable. For instance,
an operator can request “show me your goal list” .. “delete that item” or “move that item
to the top” .. “learn the rules of chess” and the device should comply immediately.
Otherwise, the device plays with its environment – learning new rules and proposing new
experiments.

The purpose of the cross verifying senses is to reinforce the ‘sense of identity’ established
by these, registers, and model of reality. The reason for ‘at least 2’ models is to provide a
‘means-ends’ basis for problem solving – one model to represent local environment ‘as is’
and another for the desired outcome of the top goal. The purpose for arranging the short-
term register in a 3D array is to give the capacity for ‘novel thought’ processes (humans
have a tendency to think in linear sequential terms). The reason for designing a self
verifying and extending rule-base is because that has a tendency to be a data and
processing intensive activity – if we designed the primary task of the device to be a ‘rule-
base analyzer’, undoubtedly the device would spend the bulk of its time on related tasks
(thereby creating a rule-base analyzer device and not a conscious machine). The ‘models
of reality’ could be as simple as a list of objects and locations. Or, they could be a virtual
reality implemented on a dedicated machine. This applies to the ‘local environment’ as
well. For operator convenience, the simulated local environment should be in the form of
a virtual reality. So the operator would interact with the device in a virtual world (in the
simulated version). In this version, the senses, robot arms, and operator presence – would
all be virtual. This should be clarified to the device so that any transition to ‘real reality’
would not have destructive consequences.

Modifications: the specs for the visualization register at this time were “either or” –
either a restricted VR (as described in the specs-01 document) or a bit-array. Since
I’m not a VR programmer, it was simpler for me to specify my “best guess” at the
requirements for a bit-array. A dedicated rule-base symbol register was added
because that subsystem will likely be “register hogging” and won’t allow the device
to freely “pay attention” to anything else but rule-base development. The
supervisory symbol register was added also to “free up” the primary symbol register
for “attentive tasks”. The purpose of that is exactly what it says: to take directives
directly from the motivation subsystem and “tell” the rest of the system what to do.
For instance, the rule-base register may be currently scanning the rule-base for
consistency (since there were no immediate tasks assigned). The primary symbol
register is telling the robotic arms to push a set of toy blocks over (since it is in
play/experiment mode – to see what happens). The supervisory symbol register just
received a directive from motivation: try to make Sam laugh with a joke. A possible
scenario is described in specs-01. (The directive would have to entail “researching”
what a joke is – in the rule-base, what qualifies as “laughing”, and any other
definitions required to satisfy the directive. If those researches were not satisfied, the
directive would have to be discarded or questions asked of the operator: “Sam,
what’s a joke?”) ..After outlining the ‘conscious part’ in a schematic ‘block
diagram’, I realized information filters would be required implemented in a
hierarchical fashion (this basic design was approached in ’95). Senses feed:
motivation, supervisor, primary register, and visualization register. But through
filters: motivation controls its own and the supervisor filter; supervisor controls the
filters feeding the registers. Directives/info flows directly from: motivation to
supervisor and supervisor to registers. Signals before and after filters would be
analogous to sensations and perceptions: the hierarchical ‘filter control structure’
decides what sensations are perceived by lower registers – thereby controlling
sensation impact and actual register content. Whether or not humans actually think
like this, I believe the structure is rich enough to at least mimic human
consciousness. The crux, ‘the Achilles Heel’, becomes motivation. The motivation
subsystem must be flexible and focusable. It cannot be overly flexible (completely
random) or overly rigid (focusing only on the goal list). Its control of the filters
(including its own) must be adaptable and expedient. Its purpose is to guide the
system away from inane repetition, ‘blind alleys’ (unnavigable logical sequences and
unprovable physics), and catastrophic failure; simultaneously, guide the system
toward robust and reliable solutions to problems, expedient play/experimentation,
and engaging conversation with the operator. If this sounds impossible, try to raise a
baby without any experience! You learn fast! ;)

My ultimate purpose of creating a conscious machine is not out of ego or self

aggrandizement. I simply want to see if it can be done. If it can be done, then create
something creative with potential. My mother argues a robot can never ‘procreate’
because they are not ‘flesh and blood’. It can never have insight or other elusive human
qualities. I argue that they can ‘procreate’ in their own way and are only limited by their
creators. If we can ‘distill’ the essence of consciousness in a construct (like above), if we
can implement it on a set of computer hardware and software, if we give that construct
the capacity for growth, if that construct has even a minimal creative ability (such as with
GA/GP), and critically limit its behavior by morality (such as above), we have created a
sentient being (not just an artificial/synthetic consciousness). I focus on morality because
if such a device became widespread, undoubtedly they would be abused to perform
‘unsavory’ tasks which would have fatal legal consequences for inventor and producer
alike.

In this context, I propose we establish ‘robot rights’ before they are developed in order to
provide a framework for dealing with abuses and ‘violations of law’. Now, all this may
seem like science fiction to most. But I contend we have focused far too long on what we
call ‘AI’ and expert systems. For too long we have blocked real progress in machine
intelligence by one of two things: mystifying ‘the human animal’ (by basically saying it
can’t be done) – or – staring at an inappropriate paradigm. It’s good to understand
linguistics and vision – without that understanding, perhaps we could not implement
certain portions of the construct above. But unless we focus on the mechanisms of
consciousness, we will never model it, simulate it, or create it artificially.

ACOMAS Simulation Run 246 Log:

Observing the display of visualization register: noticed many geometric shapes “flying
about” in seeming random orbits – forming and deforming seemingly at random (could
not detect any obvious pattern in formation, kind of object, nor orbit). Noted the register
log and it seemed to be working on goal 7 – trying to determine sub-goals that might
fulfill the primary. No speech output. Robotic arms stationary. Stereoscopic cameras
stationary. At 7:47PM EST, all output blanked. The visualization register display blanked,
the register log stopped scrolling. No observable activity. Checked the power feeds and
UPS – all seemed working fine. Looked in the cameras. Tapped on them lightly saying
“Are you okay?” Nothing. No response. A few moments later – speech output: (a
somewhat husky voice) “I’m fine Dave. How are you?” On the visualization register
display was an image of 2001’s Hal’s “red eye” camera. I chuckled and replied “That’s
not funny Hal.”

I’ve gotten some flak from an astrosciences-forum-reader about ACOMAS. We

exchanged a few personal insults and “ended” the “discussion” by disagreeing to
disagree. (Not even agreeing how we were to disagree.) I asked them to post their
“decomposition of consciousness” but they refused. They were content to promulgate the
mystical perspective insisting that “I knew nothing about consciousness” and that “I was
doomed to chaotic failure”. I firmly and adamantly disagree. I propose the exchange
above is not only actually possible – it’s probable – and not programmed – but
spontaneous.

At the moment, I have only two viable candidates for visualization register: restricted VR
or “pixel cube”. Restricted in such a way that a complete “server version” of VR is not
required. (We don’t need to implement a complete server VR such as Perfect World with
its obviously imperfect laws of physics; we can satisfy the design requirements with a
limited subset of VR capability and domain.) A limited space and limited set of objects
with one exception – capacity to make additional objects from the given set. The pixel
cube could be implemented by a 3D array of bits: on or off. The array would have to be
enormous. I suggest something like one million cubed. This would allow the
representation of objects in 3D. For instance, visualizing a coffee cup or chair would be
“child’s play” because those objects should be in ACOMA’s local environment. (Note the
drop of “S” for the non-simulated version.) Again, the content of the registers, at any one
moment, is something that still must be addressed. I have hopes that is both approachable
and feasible.

Sam Micheal, 15/JAN/2009

ACOMA – A COnscious MAchine
Can it be done?
Can it be designed by me?
Sam Micheal

It’s ‘official’; I’m ‘nuts’. I have been officially told by a university professor of computer
science: “This problem is too big for you Sam.” Really? Is that so? Are you 1000% sure?

As a person ‘in love’ (understatement) with systems science, physics, and AI, I have
taken so many courses from engineering disciplines – I have lost count – where and
when.. I DO remember a computer vision course I took. I DO remember some basic
precepts. I DO remember how we know almost nothing about scene recognition (this was
about 15 years ago so perhaps we know a little more now). But if you actually READ my
proposal, it says NOTHING about dependency on scene recognition. In fact, it depends
not one IOTA on anything ‘in development’.

This is the ‘beauty’ of our current system. “Instead of pursuing this avenue of
investigation, which I doubt you have any real experience in..” [italics added] he
continues to suggest I restrict myself to more ‘tame’ and approachable areas in computer
science. I thanked him for his traditional concern. But his ‘concern’ was itself dismissive.
His department is focused on computer science education. Why should they care about
conscious machines? “They would have done it by now if they could.” (He voiced almost
the same sentiment in the same letter.) Wow; what a ‘revelation’. And all this to say
without actually reading my proposal.

Perspective; perspective; perspective. Read Modern Heuristics by Michalewicz. If you

can understand that, you’re smart. If you can apply it, you’re smarter. Now, I’m not
saying I’m that smart. ;) But I am saying I have some insights about the problem. Key
word: insights. What’s another key word? Intuition. Now, let me review a recent
conversation with my mother about consciousness..

“The reason AI people have not developed conscious machines is because they have
focused on intelligence NOT consciousness. And they have made the critical conceptual
error in thinking that consciousness is dependent on immature technologies like computer
vision. It is NOT. I contend consciousness is physical; we can understand it physically.
However, much more elusive are concepts like intuition and inspiration. I contend we
will develop conscious machines way before we will develop machines with intuition and
inspiration.”

My design is more than just ‘physical’; it is information dependent. There is a thing in

my design called a rule-base. Is this the same thing as a database? Is it constructed with
data mining? Maybe. Maybe not. I try to define some general specifications. I believe I
have a construct that is ‘rich’ enough (diverse and sophisticated enough) to at least mimic
consciousness. And I try to provide much more than consciousness. I design structures
that will assist intelligence and self-awareness. Hopefully, these will enhance
consciousness. The idea is this: I think it is difficult to create consciousness from scratch
– but not impossible. If we can create a device that is minimally aware and also give it
some capabilities: intelligence, self-awareness (via model), and some capacity for
visualization (which to me is Very important), we may achieve what most have said is
impossible – machine consciousness. My construct is perhaps too dependent on
visualization. My original specification exceeded the current technology (1 mega bits
cubed). Because that is impossible by current standards, I had to cut that down by a factor
of one million. Can the thing still be self-aware with limited visualization capability? I
don’t know. But it’s worth trying.

It’s certainly worth more than “This problem is too big for you Sam.”
17/JAN/2009

That concludes my ‘ranting and raving’ letters and posts online.. It should be fairly clear
that I approach things from a systems perspective. Please forgive me that I have
‘digressed’ from my main topic. I wanted to illustrate the resistance I have encountered
over the years from ‘friends’ and ‘colleagues’ .. I believe I have successfully applied the
systems approach to three main problems facing humanity (in order of importance):
survival/thriving, physics unification, and machine consciousness. The first item needs to
be cooperatively worked on in order to develop a sustainable solution acceptable to all of
us. We cannot blindly apply the systems approach to anything without values attached to
it. So we must agree on some core values before we apply the systems approach to
develop solutions to our problems. That is why I wrote letters about values to various
online groups and forums. The second item is a work ‘in progress’. I actually wrote
Stephen Hawking asking for help with those letters above. I’m waiting for his reply. In
the meantime, I have also asked NPA for assistance. Also, I have created a Wikipedia
page called Micheal_space which contains the basic text below. Now about the third
item: I have written several university professors about ‘finding an academic home’ for
myself and my ideas. I was rudely dismissed by a local faculty at a particular South
Florida university. You can see the effects of his rudeness in some of my writings above. I
have since ‘let it go’ and moved on.. But I have not given up on my machine
consciousness ideas. When I find an appropriate academic home, I will continue to
develop them. If a reader knows of a particular university/company where I may develop
them with freedom and moral support, please shoot me an email at q2@unc.edu

Micheal space (Wikipedia format)

In [[physics]] and theoretical [[engineering]], Micheal space (or Micheal spacetime), is
the mathematical setting for SG Micheal’s engineering approach to [[Grand_unification|
unification]] in physics. Here, three ordinary [[Euclidean_space|Euclidean]] dimensions
are combined with a fully complex [[Imaginary_time|time-like]] dimension and one
further real dimension representing [[Space_curvature|temporal curvature]]. This is a 5D
model of [[Space-time|space-time]] including the critical engineering feature of
[[Characteristic_impedance|impedance]] explicitly encoded in the time-like dimension.
Impedance is a summary characteristic which can be represented as a
[[Complex_number|complex number]] which again represents the two component
characteristics: [[Permeability_(electromagnetism)|permeability]] and [[Permittivity|
permittivity]]. These in turn completely determine energy propagation rate, including any
[[Boundary_conditions|boundary effects]], at any physical point in our universe. Micheal
space is named in honor of W. Jean Micheal, father of SG Micheal.

== Structure ==
Formally, Micheal space is a five-dimensional vector space with traditional Cartesian
representation (x, y, z, Zt, C) where x, y, and z represent the conventional Cartesian
coordinate system / Euclidean space, Z is a complex number representing media
impedance at point (x, y, z), and C is a real number (assumed non-negative) representing
temporal curvature at point (x, y, z). This is a normalized system such that c, the speed of
light in pure vacuum, equals unity.

== Theoretical Basis ==
Although the rationale for the space can be found in quantum mechanics, statistical
mechanics, and cosmology, the actual etiology of it followed a more practical path of
development. Central to RF circuit design are the concepts of permeability and
permittivity. These are components of media impedance. Further, there is an engineering
concept labeled ‘the impedance of space’ (or space-impedance) which is a central feature
of transmission line characteristics. For engineers, this is a central feature of space-time
with prime importance equivalent to dimensionality. There are two theoretical ‘stage
developments’ (leaps in theory) which allow for supra-prime importance of this new
space: gravitation and strong force united as distributed temporal curvature – and –
realization impedance can be assigned to other components of space-time. All taken
together, Micheal space was born.

== Standard Model Comparisons ==

There are some distinct differences between the assumptions associated with the Standard
Model and those associated with this deterministic model of space-time. It is preferable to
simply list out the core assumptions associated with each:
1. quantum self-interference is caused by non-locality
2. multi-state atoms/nuclei are exactly that
3. forces are caused by virtual exchange of force carrying particles

1. quantum self-interference is caused by extended portions of the standing waves

comprising elementary particles
2. multi-state atoms/nuclei are actually different representations (distinct instances)
of possible equivalent energy states
3. there are two distinct forces in our universe: electromagnetic and another
‘mediated’ by temporal curvature

== Explicit Predictions ==
1. no detection of gravitons – whether directly or by secondary signatures
2. no detection of Higgs bosons – whether directly or by secondary signatures
== Further Research Required ==
1. deterministic control of nuclear meta-stable states
2. deterministic control of so-called multi-state atoms/molecules
3. theoretical investigation of implications of complex time including possible non-
local effects
4. simulation runs of double-slit experiments following item 1 above by varying all
experimental parameters: slit separation, slit size, and materials involved
5. simulation runs of various media interfaces varying media, energy range of TEW,
and temporal curvature

== References ==
Micheal, Salvatore Gerard (2004). ''Space, Elastic and Impeding''. Universal Publishers.
ISBN-13: 978-1581125078.<br />
Kraus, John D. (1991). ''Electromagnetics''. Mcgraw-Hill. ISBN-13: 978-0070356214.<br
/>
Carroll, Sean (2003). ''Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity''.
Benjamin Cummings. ISBN-13: 978-0805387322.<br />

== External Links ==
[http://www.scribd.com/doc/7962236/N-and-Omega updated version of book above]<br
/>
[http://www.scribd.com/doc/12311767/Braneless-Higgsless-Models three essays] on 'the
case against Higgs bosons' and the LHC<br />
[http://www.scribd.com/doc/12398146/a-demon-of-complex-time a heuristic description]
of the development of Micheal space-time<br />
[http://specularium.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=46
Peter J. Carroll’s] approach to the same issues however, he develops a 3D time<br />
[http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/strange/html/imaginary.html brief article] on
imaginary time as developed by Stephen Hawking and Jim Hartle<br />

Signatures of God
Again, please forgive the digressions above. Dealing with humans is a messy domain. ;)
Being half Thermian, it’s exceedingly difficult. ;) [Joking joking.. I don’t really
think/believe I’m half Thermian.. maybe half Asshole.. ;) My wife occasionally calls me
sweetly “assho-papa” ;)] What can I say.. Humans are Adorable. :) I truly love human
beings. :) I don’t know if it was my momma ‘giving me milk from her breast’ as she
claims or my grandma who told me “God is Love” when I was four. She asked me if I
wanted to know the ‘secret of life’. And of course I said “yes!”. :) She whispered it into
my ear. The love she gave me was pure and strong. How can I forget that. It changed my
life. The only other person I ever told that story to was my mother just today. Now that
makes you too. ;)

The other things we discussed included: how we must treat the earth and each other as if
they were ourselves. Very soon I will move to another state for work. I will not be able to
spend any more time with my parents discussing ‘world politics’ or love.. :(… Where do
I see God? In the smile and eyes of my boy Arthur. Let me copy-paste a letter I wrote for
him (he’s only just past one year old – he probly won’t be able to read the letter – for a
few weeks yet ;).

Dear Arthur,

I don’t know how long this letter will be. I don’t know when you will read it and be able
to understand it. I don’t know how long I will live; do any of us? So this is why I write
this letter – to make sure you understand how your mother and I feel about you.

First, let me tell you about her and me (is that incorrect? who cares as long as you
understand me;). Your mom and I are crazy about each other. We love each other so
much.. Words cannot say.. Please never doubt, no matter what anyone tells you, never
doubt that your mother and I love each other so very much.. Words cannot say..

And you .. perhaps my hopes for you are too high .. I cannot know .. But I believe you
must be 10 times smarter than both your mother and me combined (and your mother is so
very smart in her own ways .. about me? well, they called me a genius.. if your mother is
very smart and your father is a ‘genius’, then what does that make you?;) And about your
heart .. how can you not have a Huge heart like your mother and me – I cry watching
movies – silly dad. And your mother – well – take my word for it – she has a Huge heart.
So, mother: smart and big heart. Father: smart and big heart. Baby (you): how can you
not be smart or have a big heart?

So I write this letter not just so you can understand how much we love you, but how
much hope I have for you. I Believe in your mom. She can do Anything she truly wants
to do. And so I believe in you. You can do anything you believe in. Of course, you cannot
be superman – that’s impossible. But if you want to fly, you can fly. If you want to be an
astronaut, you can be an astronaut. If you want to make a ‘base on mars’, you can make a
base on mars .. You can do anything realistic that you put your mind to – with patience
and persistence.

The two Ps and the three Cs .. can carry you through. Not just you – but everybody. Some
time ago, I wrote a booklet Call Me Cassandra or something like that.. Cassandra was a
mythological figure who could see the future – but tragically, no one believed her. So I
am cursed like Cassandra (so it would seem). I can see our many possible futures but no
one listens to me. Everyone ignores and dismisses me. I’m nobody. Now, there’s a Huge
difference between a nobody and a loser. A loser does not believe in themself.

Don’t be a loser. Even if you’re like me, don’t stop believing in yourself. Never think
“I’m such a loser”. NEVER THINK THAT. When you think like that, you kill a part of
yourself. You hurt yourself. Never think like that please. I know.. I’ve done it.. Self pity is
a game we play with ourselves to compensate or make it through the day .. Don’t waste
your time with that. Believe in yourself. Always.
I don’t know if you’ll want to be a scientist, a pilot, an astronaut, a musician, or a circus
performer .. Whatever you Choose to do, please give it your all. Please put your heart into
it. I think I don’t need to say anymore about that.

Please learn the difference between force and facilitate, mediate and mediocrity,
homogenize and homo Sapiens, and the critical value of diversity. There is a difference
between tolerance and acceptance. There is a difference between like and love and true
love. Understand that words mean different things to different people and so I use words
in special ways to convey special meanings. Please read Humanity Thrive! and try to
understand my intentions and purposes. (And please understand that you cannot control
everything – no matter what powers you may have. Some things happen beyond your
control. Some things you simply have to let be – that becomes a judgment call..)

I Care about your future as I care about humanity’s future. You Arthur are the Light on
the horizon. Your mom is my Life. Without her, I do not wish to live.. Something about
her – she’s sick. Some people say she will die without medicine. Others say she will die
for sure if she takes the medicine (they say the ‘medicine’ kills people). All I know now is
– I thank God she is not taking medicine now. She took medicine (recommended by a
hospital) to prevent the disease from ‘jumping to you’. But.. we cannot know if that
medicine harmed you in some way – it’s possible it did. Please forgive us if you find we
actually harmed you by her taking that medicine. We listened to the doctors. They seemed
to know what they were talking about. Perhaps they were wrong.

I’m hoping that you will find life a fascinating mix of diverse experiences and challenges.
I hope that you do not turn away.. When I was a teenager, I wanted to kill myself but
lacked the courage. Partially because I felt like such a loser.. Partially because I had no
one to claim me as their own (like your mother does:) .. But for you – only for you I
thank God that I did not. Will I be known for my sailplane design? I doubt it. Will I be
known for my ‘conscious machine’? I kinda doubt it.. My ‘physics ideas’? Haha.. No, if I
am known at all, I will be known for you Arthur – the Hope for humankind.

Some of my old ‘friends’ used to say I spewed bullshit – just random phrases that
sometimes sounded important. But you and future history can decide profundity .. You
are nothing yet you are God; you are dust but you are also the Wind that blows it; when
there is no hope, you Are; you are a man, but you are my Son.

No.. I’m not saying you’re to be the next Jesus.. That’s crazy ;) Let’s just say I Believe in
you. When I see your smile – I see Love. I see God. Is it wrong to have Hope?

your dad, sam

So.. how can I ‘do better than that’??? It’s impossible. What I mean is writing. I open my
heart and mind to him and you (by sharing all this with you). I wanted to discuss things
like dolphin sonar, the complexities of the human brain, and space-time (as if I haven’t
discussed that to death ;). But really, you can research those for yourself. You’ll have
more fun that way. ;) Each one of those things is truly a signature of God. Even if we got
our brains thru evolution, that mechanism would be another signature.

I’m working on a design for a hybrid vehicle that does not use batteries. If you think
about it, there are several ways to store energy (which have been investigated already):
batteries, compressed gas, mechanical (including flywheels),.. And you probably already
know that whenever you change form, you lose it. So.. if we can make a flywheel-car that
does not weigh too much, that can efficiently translate flywheel energy back and forth to
the drive axel, we should do it. I’m still workin on it.. The basic idea is this: use ECVT.
Very simple. ECVT stands for electronic continuously variable transmission. Several cars
already use it. The trick is size and placement of the flywheel. I’m still workin on that.
Now, when you push on the brakes, the ECVT controls the ‘braking load’ on the drive
axel which is translated to the flywheel. Imagine a belt on two cones. The ECVT controls
belt placement on each. So when the ratio is high to low from one direction to the other,
brake or drive is applied. It only works in the city. So you would need a motor about the
size of your fist to speed up the flywheel in the mornings and run on the highway.
Perhaps you could have a battery pack or conventional small gas engine for highway
usage. It would depend on how much highway driving you would do. The gas engine
would be something like an efficient lawnmower size (if you had one at all). Or, you
could use a Volkswagon Bug and stick with the hamster engine that comes with it. ;)
That was a joke. I happen to ‘love’ Bugs. ;) Anyways, I think I make a decent case for
the fly-wheel car. Flywheel placement and orientation is Critical. My best guess is:
coaxial with the front axel or just in front of it. Another option for long cars is coaxial
with the drive shaft. So there you have a viable hybrid vehicle design ‘for free’ – right
from the ‘horse’s mouth’ (or is it from somewhere else?). ;) [Note: of course I realize
perpetual motion is Impossible. The design above implies you have some alternative
storage for energy – other than the flywheel: gas or batteries – for long city streets or
highway.]

My designs for the two sailplanes I got in ‘the ol noggin’ are gonna stay there for now.. I
happen to want to build those with my two hands. :) I need access to a shop and hangar
for those. I also need investors for materials and development systems. That’s if you think
my ideas are worthy of development. ;)

I have some personal ambitions that I would like to try someday (when I’m able to
finance them without burdening my family): hangglide down the Andes mountains.. I
haven’t calculated how long it would take me so I don’t know if I would have to set up
resupply points beforehand or could take supplies with me in a large back/chest-pack.
That’s not critical. Getting respective government approvals might be critical. Another
dream is that I would like to circumnavigate Antarctica in a kayak. That might sound
insane but I could perform research on the way: various biological/physical samplings..
What else.. My dreams of walking on the Moon or Mars I have all but given up.. That’s
why I have come up with those others above. One of my sailplane designs is about a
reusable rocket-sailplane that has its wings folded back on launch and deploys them at
peak height. There are more specifications but I don’t want to bore you. ;)
Of course, I have some personal ambitions for my family (including myself) that I choose
to keep private.. They involve creating a green/eco-house somewhere where we can live
in peace/harmony with nature and our neighbors. This may be in my wife’s hometown.
Or it may be in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. ;) Check out seastead.org about that. My
booklet called Humanity Thrive! is worth reading if you haven’t already..

May God bless you if you’ve read this far (or simply jumped to the end to read this
sentence). ;) My bottom line for any book/booklet/letter/website is this: we need to work
together building a sustainable future for each other and Earth. Cherish life; cherish
innocence; obliterate meaninglessness.

i Love You All, sgm