The collapse of the older non-process paradigm is also exposing dramatic human aspects of the historical development of that paradigm, for the failure of that paradigm is actually traceable to numerous bungles and flawed human behaviour. Indeed some of that history is shockingly scandalous, and in particular the ongoing behaviour of the physics profession is very disturbing - basically the non-process paradigm has acquired the status of a belief system, as distinct from a science, and as such is defended with ruthless and unscrupulous behaviour. For many the non-process paradigm is now beyond challenge, and both old and new experiments that contradicted that paradigm are simply to be ignored and even suppressed. Indeed the many true successes of the old paradigm have ultimately led to nothing more than stagnation and decay, and much current work in theoretical physics has degenerated to spurious mathematical generalisations of a failed paradigm.

The consolidation so far of the new process physics . . . moves from the logic of the limitations of logic to the bootstrapping of a semantic information system. This bootstrapping system possesses none of the known phenomena of current physics, but in later sections we see the emergence of space and quantum matter in a unified manner. The characteristics of the emergent space are different from that of the modelling of space within the geometrical paradigm and in particular as well as absolute motion, that is motion with respect to space itself, a new and detailed theory of gravity arises. Essentially ever since the Einsteins¹ proposed that absolute motion was without meaning and so unobservable, following Poincaré, the physicists have essentially banned the concept, and it remains as such today. This state of affairs can be traced to a key misunderstanding that follows from the Einstein postulates; namely that absolute motion is incompatible with relativistic effects. However there is extensive experimental evidence, which is assembled and analysed here for the first time, that absolute motion has been observed again and again, and was clearly evident even in the seminal Michelson-Morley experiment. Over the years the only experiments that were permitted to be published in the physics literature were those that actually failed to observe absolute motion. Not because they were poorly executed but simply because in principle they were actually unable to detect the phenomena of absolute motion. The experiments that detected and studied absolute motion, and amongst these the most significant was the impressive series by Miller, now reveal evidence in support of the new theory of gravity. Gravity is neither a force nor a curvature of spacetime, but rather inhomogeneities in the effective in-flow of the quantum foam that is space into matter. This in-flow and even its associated turbulence are manifest in the experimental data from various absolute motion experiments. As a consequence we clearly see that the Einstein curved spacetime construct is without experimental support, that it actually never was confirmed by the key and celebrated experiments, for they were actually confirming another explanation. In the end we see that the Einstein spacetime formalism is demonstrably wrong, and that the evidence against it was available even before the Einsteins put forward their fundamental assumptions that later became the foundations of twentieth century physics. Essentially the whole Einstein formalism has all the hallmarks of another system of 'epicycles' - when finally we understand what is going on the whole construct evaporates, just as Ptolemy's epicycles did when it was realised that they were entirely a consequence of not separating a measurement protocol from the phenomena it was meant to measure. In the case of Ptolemy it was finally realised that the Earth was itself undergoing motion. In the case of the Einstein formalism we finally understand that the rods and clocks used to define and implement measurements of motion are actually affected by motion through the quantum foam that is space, a view that predated the Einsteins and is now seen to be correct.

All of these developments and the clearing away of epicycle descriptions lead us back to very challenging notions about the nature of time and the deep connectivity and processing that is reality, a connectivity that was evident in some aspects of the quantum theory, but which was essentially outside of the non-process paradigm. This new physics is seen to be panexperientialist in character in which a primitive self-awareness or 'consciousness' is foundational to reality in the manner argued by Griffen and others [5], a consciousness that appears to be intrinsic to the semantic nature of the information system that is process physics. Such notions it seems may well be moving into the realm of experimental science and will result in a unification of human knowledge and experience that is beyond our prevailing comprehensions.

¹Referring to Einstein and his then wife Mileva Maric-Einstein.

—Reginald T. Cahill, Process Physics: From Information Theory to Quantum Space and Matter

The collapse of the older non-process paradigm is also exposing dramatic human aspects of the historical development of that paradigm, for the failure of that paradigm is actually traceable to numerous bungles and flawed human behaviour. Indeed some of that history is shockingly scandalous, and in particular the ongoing behaviour of the physics profession is very disturbing - basically the non-process paradigm has acquired the status of a belief system, as distinct from a science, and as such is defended with ruthless and unscrupulous behaviour. For many the non-process paradigm is now beyond challenge, and both old and new experiments that contradicted that paradigm are simply to be ignored and even suppressed. Indeed the many true successes of the old paradigm have ultimately led to nothing more than stagnation and decay, and much current work in theoretical physics has degenerated to spurious mathematical generalisations of a failed paradigm.

The consolidation so far of the new process physics . . . moves from the logic of the limitations of logic to the bootstrapping of a semantic information system. This bootstrapping system possesses none of the known phenomena of current physics, but in later sections we see the emergence of space and quantum matter in a unified manner. The characteristics of the emergent space are different from that of the modelling of space within the geometrical paradigm and in particular as well as absolute motion, that is motion with respect to space itself, a new and detailed theory of gravity arises. Essentially ever since the Einsteins¹ proposed that absolute motion was without meaning and so unobservable, following Poincaré, the physicists have essentially banned the concept, and it remains as such today. This state of affairs can be traced to a key misunderstanding that follows from the Einstein postulates; namely that absolute motion is incompatible with relativistic effects. However there is extensive experimental evidence, which is assembled and analysed here for the first time, that absolute motion has been observed again and again, and was clearly evident even in the seminal Michelson-Morley experiment. Over the years the only experiments that were permitted to be published in the physics literature were those that actually failed to observe absolute motion. Not because they were poorly executed but simply because in principle they were actually unable to detect the phenomena of absolute motion. The experiments that detected and studied absolute motion, and amongst these the most significant was the impressive series by Miller, now reveal evidence in support of the new theory of gravity. Gravity is neither a force nor a curvature of spacetime, but rather inhomogeneities in the effective in-flow of the quantum foam that is space into matter. This in-flow and even its associated turbulence are manifest in the experimental data from various absolute motion experiments. As a consequence we clearly see that the Einstein curved spacetime construct is without experimental support, that it actually never was confirmed by the key and celebrated experiments, for they were actually confirming another explanation. In the end we see that the Einstein spacetime formalism is demonstrably wrong, and that the evidence against it was available even before the Einsteins put forward their fundamental assumptions that later became the foundations of twentieth century physics. Essentially the whole Einstein formalism has all the hallmarks of another system of 'epicycles' - when finally we understand what is going on the whole construct evaporates, just as Ptolemy's epicycles did when it was realised that they were entirely a consequence of not separating a measurement protocol from the phenomena it was meant to measure. In the case of Ptolemy it was finally realised that the Earth was itself undergoing motion. In the case of the Einstein formalism we finally understand that the rods and clocks used to define and implement measurements of motion are actually affected by motion through the quantum foam that is space, a view that predated the Einsteins and is now seen to be correct.

All of these developments and the clearing away of epicycle descriptions lead us back to very challenging notions about the nature of time and the deep connectivity and processing that is reality, a connectivity that was evident in some aspects of the quantum theory, but which was essentially outside of the non-process paradigm. This new physics is seen to be panexperientialist in character in which a primitive self-awareness or 'consciousness' is foundational to reality in the manner argued by Griffen and others [5], a consciousness that appears to be intrinsic to the semantic nature of the information system that is process physics. Such notions it seems may well be moving into the realm of experimental science and will result in a unification of human knowledge and experience that is beyond our prevailing comprehensions.

¹Referring to Einstein and his then wife Mileva Maric-Einstein.

—Reginald T. Cahill, Process Physics: From Information Theory to Quantum Space and Matter

The Chinese researchers reported in their teleportation experiments that high-speed photography/videotaping recorded test specimens physically 'melding' or blending with the walls of sealed containers, and in a different series of experiments the test specimens would simply disappear from inside the container only to reappear at another location (after seconds to several minutes of time transpired). They also reported in the series of radio micro-transmitter experiments that there were large fluctuations in the intensity (in both amplitude and frequency) of the monitored signal to the effect that it would either completely disappear or become extremely weak (to the extent that the monitoring instruments could scarcely detect it); and they discovered that there was a definite correlation between the change in strength (i.e., radical frequency shifts were observed) of the monitored radio signal and the teleportation of the radio micro-transmitter, such that the weak or absent signal indicated that the specimen was 'nonexistent' (or in an altered physical state) during teleportation. This data is important because without the aid of electronic monitoring instruments, the average person's sensory organs and usual methods of detection are temporarily unable to perceive the test specimen's (ambiguous) existence during the teleportation process. This data offers an important clue on what the teleportation mechanism is.

It is beyond the scope of this study to propose a complete self-consistent physics theory of consciousness/mind, which explains how the mind can activate p-Teleportation and related psychotronics phenomena. This topic has been under study in recent decades by a legion of medical science, bio- and neuro-physiology, psychology, mathematics, philosophy, and physics experts. Many different theories with varying degree of theoretical maturity and self-consistency have been proposed over the years, and most of them have not yet been experimentally tested for various reasons. However, some first-order experimental work has been done (Mitchell, 1974b; Targ and Puthoff, 1977; Wolman et al., 1986; Radin, 1997; Tart et al., 2002). Ironically, quantum mechanics theory, and the related physics of quantum entanglement and teleportation, has become the primary focus of all of the physics theories of consciousness/psychotronics that have been recently proposed (see for example, Shan, 2003). Wolman et al. (1986) and Radin (1997) provide a review and discussion on recent theories and experiments that are based on quantum physics theory (see also, Walker, 1974; Targ and Puthoff, 1977; Mitchell, 1999, and the references cited therein; Tart et al., 2002). It appears that the physics of q-Teleportation (Chapter 3) has tremendous relevance to the physics of p-Teleportation and psychotronics.

In the following I propose a parsimonious first-order hypothesis that can explain the gross features of both the Chinese p-Teleportation data and the other reported p-Teleportation phenomena. But I will refrain from including any role that might be played by quantum phenomena since the scientific community has not yet settled that particular issue. (However, it is apparent that quantum theory and quantum phenomena will likely play a key role in a formal physics theory of PK and psychotronics.) First-Order Hypothesis:

• Fact 1: The mature discipline of mathematical geometry developed the properties of higher dimensional spaces (Reichenbach, 1957; Manning, 1977; Rucker, 1977). An example of one such property that is of relevance to the hypothesis: One can visualize a four-dimensional world by using color as the 4th dimension. We can think of a three-dimensional world, whereby objects pass through one another if their colors (i.e., four-dimensional locations) are different (Reichenbach, 1957). For example, color can be used as a 4th dimension to see how a knot in three-dimensions can be untied in a 4th spatial dimension without moving the ends of the cord. That is because a cord cannot stay knotted in four-dimensional space, because the extra degree of freedom will cause any knot to slip through itself. Two other interesting and relevant examples are that the links of a chain may be separated unbroken in the 4th dimension, and a flexible sphere may be turned inside out without tearing in the 4th dimension (Manning, 1977; Rucker, 1977).


• Proposition 1 and Fact 2: It has been proposed that our space actually possesses a slight fourdimensional hyperthickness, so that the ultimate components of our nervous system are actually higher dimensional, thus enabling the human mind/brain to imagine four-dimensional space (Hinton, 1888, 1904; Rucker, 1977). If this is the case, then the three-dimensional nets of neurons that code thoughts in our brain may form four-dimensional patterns to achieve fourdimensional thought. The 'bulk' space in 3-brane theory (see Section 4.1), and experimental data from the Remote Viewing program (see Section 5.1), provide support for this concept. Can we see into the 4th dimension and have four-dimensional thoughts? Yes, we can. Proof (see, Rucker, 1977, 1984): If you look at a Necker cube for a while, it spontaneously turns into its mirror image and back again. If you watch it do this often enough, the twinkling sort of motion from one state to the other begins to seem like a continuous motion. But this motion can only be continuous if it is a rotation in four-dimensional space. The mathematician August F. Möbius discovered in 1827 that it is in fact possible to turn a three-dimensional solid object into its mirror image by an appropriate rotation through four-dimensional space (a.k.a. hyperspace rotation). Thus, it is actually possible for our minds to perform such a rotation. Therefore, we can actually produce four-dimensional phenomenon in our minds, so our consciousness is four-dimensional. Rucker (1984) shows another dramatic example of being able to see into the 4th dimension via a 'Neck-A-Cube.'



• Fact 3: Another property of higher dimensional geometry (Reichenbach, 1957; Rucker, 1977, 1984) is that one can move through solid three-dimensional obstacles without penetrating them by passing in the direction of the 4th (spatial) dimension. The 4th dimension is perpendicular to all of our normal three-dimensional space directions, and so our three-dimensional enclosures have no walls against this direction.


• Conclusion and Hypothesis: Therefore, the results of the Chinese p-Teleportation experiments can simply be explained as a human consciousness phenomenon that somehow acts to move or rotate test specimens through a 4th spatial dimension, so that the specimens are able to penetrate the solid walls/barriers of their containers without physically breaching them. No real dematerialization/rematerialization of the specimens takes place. The intensity fluctuations of the radio micro-transmitter specimen's electromagnetic signal, and the apparent blending of the other specimens with the walls of their containers, represent the passage of the specimens through a 4th spatial dimension. During teleportation the radio signals emitted by the micro-transmitter became weak/non-existent and fluctuated, because they were spreading out into the 4th dimension and became undetectable in our three-dimensional space. The weak signals that were ('barely') detected represent the leakage of a portion of the radio signal back into our three-dimensional space from the 4th dimension during teleportation. The observed blending of the other specimens with the walls of their containers is how the movement/rotation of the specimens through the 4th dimension was visually interpreted by the mind (along the lines of the Necker cube or Neck-ACube examples).

—Eric W. Davis, Teleportation Physics Study