Independent Ideator : Caleigh Fisher

Caleigh Fisher commented on one of my YouTube videos and we had a constructive conversation. Caleigh has a YouTube channel with several videos about Caleigh’s interpretation of nature.

Caleigh : This Euclidean notion of space is strange.

Mark : I’d like to hear more about your thoughts on this.

Caleigh : In my thinking there is a vacuum, meaning no baryons, but this vacuum does have an energy, a tension, which WAS the tension of the expansion of AdS space before AdS space collapsed, creating the universe. The way i view things, any energy imparts a curve on space. On the metric itself. Photon is a ripple and so its net affect is zero. No charge. Even though we know it can be charge separated into e- e÷ which is an outflow and an inflow. Both of which impart curve on space, but balanced and thus neutral. There is no Euclidean flat space. The Metric itself, space, is curved. But i also believe that time is a compact dimension. The compact dimension. We rotate through an infinitesimal moment of time. Past to present , now , present to future. This rotation direction determines charge. Which is why you need the two charges before you can create a present moment, a neutron.

Caleigh : But i totally agree with you that it is all essentially fluid flow or elastic modulation of charges

Mark : I think what you are describing as a vacuum is what I would call the aether. The aether we are used to consists of a detritus of relatively low energy particles, probably photons that have red-shifted to the point of no longer maintaining their massless configuration and thus slowed down, and neutrinos which likewise have redshifted to the point of joining the aether. All of these particles, like all standard matter particles, are based upon one or more energy cores of up to three coupled electrino-positrino point charge dipoles. So bless the Einstein’s, but their metric is flawed. General relativity is a continuous mathematics with no lower energy bound, no upper energy bound, and no quantum steps and that is ultimately the incorrect model, although it works amazingly well.

Mark : In reality it is even less complicated – each aether particle has a floating A/C ground (gravitational energy ebbing and flowing with matter-energy) and a discrete ability to transact angular momentum in units of h-bar (the quantum). The curves on spacetime are really caused by energy levels and energy gradients in the aether which cause the dipoles to increase in energy or decrease in energy and all the while maintain a relationship between their frequency of orbit and radius of orbit such that we always perceive the speed of light to be a constant c. This may sound complicated but its not really, if you let your mind free of priors and just logically imagine immutable point charges at |e/6| charge magnitude flying around a Euclidean void.

Caleigh : I just see energy dense regions as literally denser so if you want a Euclidean space but with density variability whereas I see it as the energy density BEING the graph grid so to speak and thus the metric varies. We understand the same thing. Just charge and it’s movement and configuration.

Mark : The physical model of immutable point charges is what can free your mind from all the cacophony taught by physicists. They made a mistake and then it compounded and now the theories are so many and so complex as to be crazy-makers. But all that goes away once we know there is no singularity. It is just a big clank on that Planck core and it is a bounce point. No wormholes. No woo. Then everything makes sense when you work with immutable point charges and the people with the truly brilliant minds can start envisioning the future starting with all the building blocks and all the laws of nature.

Here is one of Caleigh videos which I find to demonstrate an incredible mathematical to visceral connection with how nature actually works.

Mark : You have some amazing intuition Caleigh. I think you may find the going easier if you think in terms of point charges with a sphere of immutability at radius Planck length divided by 2*pi. Now you get your Planck spheres and recover classical mechanics. What you are drawing here as a bundle of sticks becomes a face centered cubic or hexagonal closest packed Planck core of these point charges each with a sphere of immutability. No singluarity is possible. Yet you are correct that as groups of these point charges jet away from a core they start making structure. It is very easy to show all the standard matter particle formulas as structures made from two types of point charges, the electrino at -e/6 and the positrino at +e/6. For example, the neutrino is 3 electrinos and 3 positrinos arranged as three dipoles at different energy that are coupled but can’t completely shield the mass of the internal two dipoles.

Mark : A planar orbiting dipole of one electrino and one positrino will transact energy in h-bar and change its radius and frequency although it is physical and not an abstract geometry and continuous metric tensor. Therefore, the radius of curvature of that dipole varies with energy. When both the electrino and positrino have the Planck energy, they could spin without touching at a distance of Planck-length divided by pi point charge to point charge. That would be some incredible curl. But that’s the limit density wise for curvature.

Caleigh : Yes. It’s like the Planck [scale] limits the upper frequency and everything is undertones. A place to investigate is this variation of proton depending on electron or muon as counterpart. The charge is satisfied but the proton acts different.

Mark : Exactly. 10^44 different frequencies in the dipole. Plus the 0.5’s since the electrino and positrino can rotate a 1/2 turn, hence spin 1/2, explaining spin. I have figured out that a proton is 15 electrinos and 21 positrinos. A neutron is 18 of each. An electron is 9 electrinos and 3 positrinos. Each standard matter particle is has at least one dipole based energy engine. Generation one fermions have a set of three coupled dipoles for their energy core. Protons and neutrons have a group of three of these dipole triplets, so like three energy engines.

Mark : There is also something happening with the planes of the dipoles in an energy core. Not only do they change frequency and radius when they transact h-bar angular momentum, but as the whole particle velocity changes, the tilt of these planes seems to change. Probably has something to do with eigenvalues, mixing angles, and all the trigonometry in particle physics.

In this video Caleigh describes several deep concepts with photons and spacetime in what I would call a visceral description of behaviour as determined by mathematical models of nature. For me, this is fascinating because Caleigh’s visceral description maps pretty much spot on to my feel for NPQG math, which is a physical layer model based on classical mechanics and electromagnetics, with a few new natural characteristics, such as point charge immutability. I have a sense that Caleigh is quite knowledgeable of the deeper mathematical models.

Mark : @3:00 : Your photon at two layers and 720 degrees rotation is amazingly close and you naturally understand the counter-rotation by the way you drew it. I model the photon as follows : six electrinos and six positrinos arranged as three concentric dipoles at different energies, all rotating in the same plane on the same center. Now take another one of those, flip it around so it is counter-rotating, and offset it just a smidge to the first planer dipole triplet. You can now see how the electromagnetic wave of the photons is created and how polarization works. It’s just the outer counter-rotating dipoles. The inner four dipoles are shielded and I think will be new science.

Mark : Hi Caleigh. May I ask what is your background in physics and math? Have you studied these topics a university? self-taught? Where can I learn more about your ideas? I am finding that your ideas are very insightful and helpful as well. Thanks!

Caleigh : I did undergrad in anthropology and molecular bio but then got into a different line of work but always kept interest. My father was a biology teacher and i had the entire scientific American library in my basement.

Mark : Cool. Well I’ve written a lot about my ideas over at my blog at If you want to collaborate on ideas that could be interesting and fun.

Caleigh : am going to stick the neutrinos on the end, all neutral.

Caleigh : What I think is hardest to integrate is the thixotropic quality of space. But this is as you point out, totally logical part of conservation/least energy.

Mark : Thixotropy is probably easy to model for a professional physicist given the geometry of point charge structures. However, it is over my head. Just remember, every transfer of energy is spinning dipoles up or down, or tilting their plane of orbit. Noether’s theorem rules and a dipole triplet is a 3-dimensional dynamo of conservation.

This video of Caleigh’s is so entirely fascinating. I can see the mind trying to link all the concepts and find the right combination of ideas. If I step back to all I’ve learned about physicists and cosmologists in the last three years, it is very much like they are in a collective with obsessional behaviour over a set of confusing ideas. This has led to a mass hysteria and crisis in physics and cosmology. Thankfully, everything just sorts out cleanly in Neoclassical Physics and Quantum Gravity — a model of nature based upon energetic point charges in a Euclidean void of time and space.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California