## Big Picture of Point Charge Theory

This is a bit of an eye test, but I’m attempting to show some aspects of how point charge theory relates to existing GR/QM/LCDM theory and re-imagines the universe from this new perspective. As always, observations stand, lots of the existing math is effective, but reinterpretation of narrative is fair game. There is still a huge way to go to link everything up.

Next time you are on your big LCD monitor, check it out. Nature, emergence, and the universe are so very easy to understand. The scientists were just inside-out and upside-down. It was only a matter of stumbling over the seeding false prior, a lot of sleuthing and code breaking, and then rearranging their theories like a transformer toy. At this point, the NPQG project is not science on the merits, but instead is about formulating the paradigm shift to help science get on track. We also need closed loop corrective action on the scientific method to build in self-correction!

Seriously everything, including what scientists call spacetime, is made out of minus and plus point charges. Opposite charges attract and like charges repel and there is no issue with them coming too close and colliding. Can’t happen. So they just fly around in a universe scale charged N-body dynamical geometry. If a lot of point charges get concentrated in one locality, with high energy, they form stable patterns, like protons, electrons, and neutrons and photons. That’s it. We are all just plusses and minuses. What do you think about that?

As of this writing, although there is a healthy readership of this NPQG blog, the theory hasn’t gone exponential. Only a few people have revealed that they understand the point charge formulation of the nature and the universe. One awesome aspect of the point charge model is that once you get it, you really get it, and it is profound to understand that ingredients so simple could lead to the entire universe and everything we have ever observed. I always feel like today could be NPQG exponential day.

Could it be that others in history have also reached (or surpassed) my primitive understanding of the point charge formulation of nature? NPQG is essentially the source code to nature. If scientists had or have figured it out, why didn’t or haven’t they revealed it? As I have mentioned before, I think conspiracies are difficult to keep secret, but perhaps some subset of the attendees of the 1927 Solvay conference may have known. That era in history was marked by war, sociopolitcal upheaval, and immense suffering. It was also a critical turning point in the history of physics, veering towards effective theories and away from the search for truth. Perhaps there were major concerns about the uses to which the source code for nature could be utilized for evil. Will we ever know if the point charge formulation had been discovered by 1927? What about the period 1927 to present?

As the first, or maybe the first public, person to begin to understand nature in the point charge era, there are some incredibly interesting ideas that occur to me. I often listen to long form podcasts on my walks, and lately I’ve been listening to a BBC podcast series on philosophy. Although it is way over my head, I can already see how the point charge formulation of nature is going to cause upheavel in philosophy. How many Ph.D. theses, academic papers, and books will go back and analyze historical philosophers and their texts from this new vantage point? Thousands?

What about studies of religion? I have no idea how religions deal with the standard models of physics and cosmology today. I don’t hear much about it, yet I surmise that these subjects maintain an arms length relationship. That’s all fine and dandy when the scientists have a standard model with dozens of particles and it’s really complicated to understand and even the scientists can’t explain it. It’s a whole ‘nuther ball game when nature and the universe are known to emerge from plus and minus point charges. Where does a supreme being fit with point charge nature? I presume the religions will still have a supreme being, but the crux of the matter is the need to define and explain the conception. Let’s list some options for fun.

• The supreme being could be entirely off the game board. So not in Euclidean space and not structured from point charges. There is a major problem with this idea, which is that it is entirely coincident with the simulation hypothesis and operator Op. With the source code of nature in hand, simulation is a simple scale and efficiency problem. Who wants to imagine a religious supreme being as Op?
• The supreme being could be somewhere in Euclidean time and space and not made of point charges. Not sure what that would be, or where it would be hiding. This seems like a silly and less feasible version of the simulation hypothesis.
• The supreme being could be in Euclidean time and space and “appear as if they are assembled with point charges.”. Ha! This will most certainly be a typical trope of new religions that arise. The chosen one. Sadly, many vulnerable people will be suckered by these charlatans.
• The religions could take a bold step and eliminate supreme beings from their texts. What a novel idea. Problem solved. I think it is a winner. Since we can be sure that individuals will always be drawn to groups, I would hope that some truly altruistic “religious” organizations would arise that avoid the vast suffering and suckering inflicted on behalf of so many religions. Of course, people behaving as they do, it is extremely important to design a religion to avoid concentration of power in one or a few individuals. There is a lot more I would recommend in the design of a religious organization, but I’ll leave it at that for now.

On that final point, concentration of power in an individual is an element in many bad outcomes. Much suffering is inflicted by the powerful on the weak — this is not a surprise. However, we could as a society take steps to minimize our vulnerability to many toxic power relationships. For starters I recommend designing these failure points out of our organizations — whether they be schools and universities, corporations, social or religious groups, or governments.

J Mark Morris : Boston : Massachusetts