T-3, T-2, T-1, NPQG Liftoff!?

I’ve felt this way before, and I could very well be wrong, but I have that feeling again that NPQG is about to burst onto the scenes. I started working on a theory of everything in January, 2018. By mid-2018 I was convinced I had figured it out, at least directionally. All of nature was based on two fundamental particles. At the time I called them s and t, not that they represented space and time, but perhaps as a tipping of the hat to space and time. At that time, in retrospect, I had near zero ability to communicate my idea well. I was seeing an enormous number of touchpoints where it made sense to my logic and intuition that nature had only two fundamental particles. That said, if physicists had been willing to engage in discussion, the solution to nature could have been complete by end of 2018. I had the vision, and I could have directed them to the correct solution.

In the intervening two years to mid-2020 I’ve had the feeling multiple times that NPQG was about to pop. Either way, pop or no pop, I kept plugging away gaining insight and understanding of how nature and the universe work. It is in the periods where I have a breakthrough and insights come really fast, when I think NPQG may be about to emerge from the professional cacophony of physics/cosmology/astronomy as well as the tower of babble from outsiders, which includes me. Frankly, many of us can’t speak the same language.

Today, even different areas of the same field have significant differences in language and may have difficulty communicating. This is actually a major flaw in science, when a field gets into professional silos and also outreach communication with the public is a one way street — megaphone style. Some members of the engaged public can be quite creative and occasionally have insights themselves. Science needs to learn out how to efficiently capture those innovations.

I have been very confident in NPQG since mid-2018. I’d say 100% in vision and direction, supported by primitive, basic ideas for physical implementation. My confidence in the physical model had grown asymptotically towards certainty. Many of the ideas, especially regarding the fundamental Euclidean Map 1 layer and ingredients and the Map 2 Riemannian particle construct of spacetime, are at my highest degree of certainty.

Of course certainty is a mental concept. You can be at your highest level of certainty and all of a sudden several lightning bolts strike. In the excited aftermath, the light bulbs go on and you develop a new perspective. We see this pattern in the sciences and the arts, as well as in personal, professional, social, and political lives. This is not a new pattern in human thought. Occasionally it happens, and if you think about it, such a lightning strike is overdue in physics and cosmology. And as always, I offer my sympathies to the astronomers who will need to patch a lot of their understanding up and rewrite their papers where they integrated with the nonsense from the cosmologists and physicists.

Thomas Kuhn

How does change happen? What are the dynamics that cause fundamental change in thinking in the sciences? This was a subject that philospher Thomas Kuhn addressed in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions eBook by Thomas S. Kuhn ...

I have this book but frankly I’ve been too busy on NPQG to read it. Let’s see what Wikipedia has to say:

Kuhn explains the process of scientific change as the result of various phases of paradigm change.

Phase 1 – It exists only once and is the pre-paradigm phase, in which there is no consensus on any particular theory. This phase is characterized by several incompatible and incomplete theories. The actors in the pre-paradigm community eventually gravitate to one of these conceptual frameworks and ultimately to a widespread consensus on the appropriate choice of methods, terminology and on the kinds of experiment that are likely to contribute to increased insights.

Phase 2 – Normal science begins, in which puzzles are solved within the context of the dominant paradigm. As long as there is consensus within the discipline, normal science continues. Over time, progress in normal science may reveal anomalies, facts that are difficult to explain within the context of the existing paradigm. While usually these anomalies are resolved, in some cases they may accumulate to the point where normal science becomes difficult and where weaknesses in the old paradigm are revealed.

Phase 3 – If the paradigm proves chronically unable to account for anomalies, the community enters a crisis period. Crises are often resolved within the context of normal science. However, after significant efforts of normal science within a paradigm fail, science may enter the next phase.

Phase 4 – Paradigm shift, or scientific revolution, is the phase in which the underlying assumptions of the field are reexamined and a new paradigm is established.

Phase 5 – Post-Revolution, the new paradigm’s dominance is established and so scientists return to normal science, solving puzzles within the new paradigm.


Physics and cosmology are currently in Phase 3, crisis. Astronomy is in Phase 2 with a wealth of new observational techniques and astronomers do not yet realize their field is a castle in the air, built upon false narratives and models promulgated by cosmologists and physicists. It is very difficult to cause the transition from Phase 3 to Phase 4, the revolution or paradigm shift. While researching the Kuhn cycle I found the following gem of falsehood.

In order to convince any scientist of anything, you have to begin your argument with a fundamental understanding of the existing paradigm. You must challenge basic ideas in the language and logic of those who hold them.

Kuhn’s Cycle: Paradigms and Criticism
YOUTUBE : Sprightly Pedagogue

Does the quote above mirror Kuhn’s thinking? If so Kuhn was wrong, with all due respect. I’m reading about Kuhn’s view on the incommensurability of the languages of the old and new paradigms, which causes a hindrance to communication. Yet, this fallacious trope of an argument has been made to me countless times in the last two years. This statement is quite offensive, wrong, and is only an artificial barrier scientists use to ward off creative thinkers. It is simply not true.

It is possible to approach some problems from a different direction. As you develop the idea, you look at the web of supporting logic and evidence. You can be quite confident in a new way of thinking without a full understanding of the prior paradigm when the connection network is amazingly strong at the narrative and/or deeper levels. You can also discover that the existing math and models are based on incorrect or uninformed assumptions. When both of these occur, as with NPQG, that is a very good sign indeed.

I was only six months into my new hobby of finding a TOE and was sponging up information about physics, cosmology, and astronomy as fast as I could. Even from the beginning I would read or watch information repeatedly until I absorbed the information, while also listening carefully for the scientist’s reservations, which are often expressed in quite subtle prose, inflection, or body language so as as to avoid ostracism from the orthodoxy. Sometimes it is like a ‘poker tell’.

A tell in poker is a change in a player’s behavior or demeanor that is claimed by some to give clues to that player’s assessment of their hand. A player gains an advantage if they observe and understand the meaning of another player’s tell, particularly if the tell is unconscious and reliable.


Each time I encountered an overt or subtle ‘tell‘ from scientists I made a mental note. These are very important signals about where the current paradigm may be weak. These are the areas begging for further critical study and analysis. There is yet another dynamic at work here – it is often risky for scientists to take an overt position in opposition to the current paradigm. This risk can manifest itself in job security, tenure possibilities, and funding opportunities. Some scientists are quite clever with their wording and will use rhetorical creativity to express their doubts.

Popping champagne generates a tiny supersonic shockwave

Only time will tell if NPQG pops soon. I sure hope so. It’s time for the physicists and cosmologists to jump in and start picking the low hanging fruit. I’ve been harvesting as fast as I can. They can go faster individually and there could be 1000s of them operating in parallel.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : July 15, 2020 : v1

By J Mark Morris

I am imagining and reverse engineering a model of nature and sharing my journey via social media. Join me! I would love to have collaborators in this open effort. To support this research please donate:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s