The BEI Superabstract - Part 1
by Dr. Larry Lloyd Babcock

Dear fellow truth-seekers:

In this document, I will define and discuss a "mathematical superabstract" of the BEI paper. This entails reducing the BEI paper to the following bare-bones mathematical essentials:

A. Four identities (no., page ref.): I-5A, 6A, & 12, p.8 and I-1E, p. 11,
B. Table 1, pp. 12-13

Comments on A: The four identities cited above contain all 25 physical constants (PCs) defined in Table 1. When the first three identities are substituted into the fourth, I-1E, the fourth and final expansion of the BEI is obtained: I-1F. The 16 identiforms comprising I-1F, cited below, contain all 25 PCs defined in Table 1.

The Basic Electromagnetic Identity (BEI) is based upon Basic Electromagnetic cycle time, T sub S1, which "...is but one of many definitions for this multi-faceted PC. Not only is T sub S1 the prime basis of the BEI, its value of approximately 22 and 1/4 BILLION years requires that it is also the Big Bang period!" (BEI, p.3)

Comments on B: In order to produce the requisite visual aides for greater understanding of I-1F, please take your hard copy of Table 1 and, in the upper right corner of the "Quantity" box for each PC, pencil-in the letters A through Y of the English alphabet. This newly-alphabetized PC list can be used to decode the following 16 identiforms comprising I-1F. Note that the Greek letter pi is spelled out and the squares of certain letters and quantities are required by 12 of the 16 identiforms. For example, N^2 = N superscript 2 = N squared. As noted, similar components in some of these identiforms could be further simplified by assigning other symbols, but the true identities of the PCs involved would be lost. I will also refrain from placing these identiforms into a classified sequential format with simplest first, then paired similar forms, etc. Here are these identiforms:

Identiform no.Alphabetic form
0T
1G/I
2{N^2}/B
3{O^2}/C
4{PN^2}/D
5R(N/L)^2
6{M(N/L)^2}/W = (M/W)(N/L)^2
7{N^2}/LX
8{F(N/L)^2}/V = (F/V)(N/L)^2
9{P(N/A)^2}/pi = (P/pi)(N/A)^2
10{GN^2}/J
11S(O/N)^2
12{QO^2}/E
13{Q(O/U)^2}/pi = (Q/pi)(O/U)^2
14{HO^2}/K
15{O^2}/NY

Proceeding to the next step, take a blank sheet of legal-size paper, rotate the sheet 90 degrees into a horizontal position, take a pencil and a straight-edge and draw two long narrow boxes about 1 inch high by 13 inches long (3 x 33 cm). Label the top box "I-1F, alphabetic form", and the bottom box "I-1F, PC form". Next, print the above 16 alphabetic versions of the 16 identiforms in the top box, separating each with the triple horizontal line symbol denoting IDENTITY. Note that we are dealing with an identity, not a mere "two horizontal line" equality! Those "hard-core" amongst you readers may wish to decode the contents of the top box, using Table 1, and fill the bottom box with the PC form of the fully-expanded BEI. Other readers will take this opportunity to wonder why I am taking them through all these steps, made difficult by the 25 special PC symbols and other format restrictions here in cyberspace! Said restrictions made me return to the above list and add another typed variant for four of the identiforms as a failsafe. Here is the bottom line:

I BELIEVE THAT BEI FORM I-1F IS THE WORK OF *GOD*!

I will now offer three lines of evidence in support of my BELIEF that I-1F is sourced on a much higher level of knowledge than mere mortal minds are capable of achieving!

1. Identity I-1F is mathematically ABSOLUTE by definition, because it is an identity, NOT an equation. Furthermore, as such, it is complete unto itself, i.e., self-contained. One analogy would be Kahil Gibran's observation in "The Prophet" that "... love is sufficient unto love." In addition, the cliche statement: "Everything is relative", in allusion, is an oversimplification by the uninformed which DENIES the existence of the absonite state, other absolutes noted in The Urantia Book (TUB), and ABSOLUTES like the time-invariant SGM structure noted in the BEI paper AND identity I-1F. This awesome multi-identity is NOT absonite, but finite, because it concerns time and space. (TUB, p. 2-D)

2. Identity I-1F is IRREDUCIBLE, UNEQUIVOCAL, and PRISTINE. Here are the definitions for these three capped adjectives, from the College Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary (1976):

irreducible = "Incapable of being reduced to a desired SIMPLEr or smaller form or amount."

unequivocal = "Undisguised or unobscurred; admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; CLEAR."

pristine = "1. Of or pertaining to, or typical of the earliest time or condition; primitive or ORIGINAL. 2. Remaining in a pure state; uncorrupted. [Latin pristinus, original...]"

The capped words are my emphasis. In short, I believe that I-1F is best described as one of the simplest, most clear-cut, and original forms of the BEI possible. The reason I used the qualifyer "one of..." is because I-1F could be expanded even further to include MOST, IF NOT ALL, PCs required to define All Existence. Furthermore, such a "super-mega" form of the BEI could be written around the single side of a Mobius strip and hooked up "nose to tail" with itself!

IMHoO, if the above two points seem to indicate to the reader that I-1F transcends such "smaller pieces of the puzzle" as Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, String Theory, etc. ...then I think you are beginning to understand my line of reasoning!

3. Identity I-1F is quite IMPOSSIBLE, based upon "current wisdom". As proof of my assertion, I turn now to a book review/article on page 73 of the November 30, 1992 NEWSWEEK magazine. This page has four blocked headers over a three-column text, with a bizarre yet true-to-the-point cartoonish illustration. The artwork shows a dog standing on the ground looking upward at his presumed master 1) whose mouth is open, 2) who appears to be screaming, and 3) who is precariously balanced on top of a column made of the numbers 0,7,6,5,4,3,1,and 2 which towers 8 - 10 feet (2.4 - 3.0 m) above the dog. Here are the four blocked headers at the top of the page, each set with a different font:

1. SOCIETY
2. IDEAS
3. MATH HAS PI ON ITS FACE
4. "The foundations of mathematics have serious flaws. And that may imperil all the sciences."

This review by Sharon Begley concerns John Barrow's book: "PI IN THE SKY - Counting, Thinking and Being"; Oxford, 1992, 317p., Little Brown, 1992, 317p. The latter edition is a \$14.95 paperback. Here is the ominous first sentence:

"John Barrow has a bad case of math anxiety - and he thinks everyone else should, too."

Herebelow is paragraph five of this review in its entirety:

"The trouble is that some science is not just mathematicAL; it's practically mathematics. Speculative theories about the birth of the cosmos and the world inside the atom are so abtruse they can barely be tested against reality. Instead they're measured by the seeming truth of their mathematics. Dangerous idea. It turns out to be impossible to prove that any system - geometry, arithmetic, logic - is self-consistent. That is, the math that physicists use might turn out to be internally contradictory: working out the implications of one set of rules might lead to the conclusion that, say, there are six sorts of particles smaller than atoms, while working out the implications of other rules gives eight. Unless scientists find the contradictions by dumb luck - there's no way to discover them methodically - they may never know if their theories are so much fiction."

My general comment on the apparent "sad state of affairs" quoted above is HORSEFEATHERS and MULE MUFFINS! If it was REALLY that hopeless, we would be unable to define our own reality! Here are my sentence-by-sentence comments on this paragraph.

Sentence 1: "The trouble is that some science is not just mathematicAL; it's practically mathematics."

Yes, that is quite true, and one reason why I am presenting the BEI superabstract! As an example, one could cite Relativity and the "nosebleed level" of math required to understand the details. OTOH, I will cite I-1F as an example of mathematics that is on a level of truth far above Relativity, because it is simpler, more straight forward, and one doesn't need to learn all that "high-faluting" math just to understand it! Those who think I am " blowing gas out of the wrong orifice", or that this is a ridiculous statement, will have to deal with the fact that I-1F PCs include not only the speed of light (SOL = W), but the Gravitational Wave Velocity (GWV = V), as well. Relativity is restricted to N-space where the SOL is the maximum possible velocity, whereas, I-1F is not, because the Gravitational Wave Velocity operates in massless R-space... quite outside the realm of N-space relativistic constraints! In plain English, Relativity is restricted to N-space, whereas, I-1F involves BOTH R-space (= "the other side") and N-space (= "this side").

Sentence 2: "Speculative theories about the birth of the cosmos and the world inside the atom are so abtruse they can barely be tested against reality."

In the Commentary section of DISCOVER magazine, March 1993, p. 30, Frank Wilczek wrote: "The End of Physics?". In this article he states in the very first paragraph: "...new theoretical ideas seem increasingly abstract and untestable; some are incomprehensible even to most physicists." This "more of the same" additional quote invokes in me a visual of all these mathematicians and scientists flopping around like fish out of water! Or, all in unison like a bunch of drunken deer hunters, shooting at the Moon! IMHoO, these fellows need help, desparately. Tell me dear reader, do you see ANY single aspect of I-1F above that is abtruse or incomprehensible!? If you do, you have serious problems with very elementary mathematics, because high school physics students should have no trouble understanding I-1F.

Sentences 3, 4, and 5: "Instead they are measured by the seeming truth of their mathematics. Dangerous idea. IT TURNS OUT TO BE IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE ANY SYSTEM - GEOMETRY, ARITHMETIC, LOGIC - IS SELF-CONSISTENT." (My emphasis.)

My comment on Sentence 3: You want to see "mathematical truth" of the highest order? ... then take another look at I-1F!

My comments on sentence 4: Only dangerous if you REQUIRE nosebleed level math and all the ASSUMPTIONS required to take you up to those stratospheric or "outer space" levels! Only dangerous if this high-level math you require is literally FULL OF HOLES, like Swiss cheese, because of all the PARADOXES encountered which are attributable to all those assumptions!

My comments on sentence 5: Some of these so-called experts have had the BEI paper for over a year, and yet fail to accept the obvious fact that these identities form parts of an internally consistent system! What this means is that these types wouldn't know a self-consistent system if it came up to them and kissed them on the mouth! I-1F is one such internally consistent system AND I challenge these experts to "deal with it". Furthermore, I assert that many scientific "laypersons" and even otherwise normal people can easily prove that I-1F defines a self-consistent system... and not one of them needs to have a PhD in math or physics!

Sentence 6A: "That is, the math that physicists use might turn out to be internally contradictory;..."

If so, and their math IS not self-consistent, they should abandon their search utilizing math from the "outer space levels" of mathematics and come back down Earth and use the basal-level math intrinsic to I-1F.

Sentence 6B: "... working out the implications of one set of rules might lead to the conclusion that, say, there are six sorts of particles smaller than atoms, while working out the implications of other rules gives eight."

Concerning leptons (electrons, ultimatons = neutrinos, and etc.), the internally consistent system of which the BEI of I-1F is but a small part, defines ONLY four such levels. Please refer to BEI Appendix 2, entitled: "The Four Orders of Subatomic Structure".

Sentence 7: "Unless scientists find the contradictions by dumb luck - there is no way to discover them methodically - they may never know if their theories are so much fiction."

I have spent about seven man-years of my life "wandering through" the SGM structure AND the main gravity structure that I term the "Gravity Crystal" and there are NO INCONSISTENCIES to be found. Sometimes I have been methodical, other times not, and I assert that the reason there are no inconsistencies is because there is nothing fictitous or theoretical about this system I discovered. It is, in fact, thE mathematically ideal system defining All Existence. Moreover, we exist in a disequilibrated state based upon this ideal equilibrium state... and the former encompasses the latter as its very small core structure.

Returning once again to the 25-piece internally consistent system defined in the BEI paper, in general, and I-1F specifically, I assert the following: Anyone who thinks this is all some kind of a hoax or something contrived has a major perception problem, IMHoO. There isn't a two-brained mortal in All Existence that could "make up" a 25-piece self-consistent system like I-1F. The reader should also be apprised that the 25 PCs defined in the BEI paper are but a small part of a larger system consisting of 85 PCs and the numerous identities required to define it, which I completed in December 1991.

(Ref. The document entitled: "Mathematical Summary of the Core Structure of All Existence" here on the home page concerns the five panel summary of this 85 PC system and its availability.)

I repeat:

IT IS MY BELIEF THAT FORM I-1F OF THE BEI IS THE WORK OF *GOD*.

... AND I CHALLENGE ALL COMERS TO DISPROVE THIS ASSERTION!

Obviously, *GOD* simply didn't know it was impossible to create the internally consistent system we perceive as our reality, and went ahead and created it anyway! (Da! :-)) Furthermore, if anyone reading this thinks that thE virtually PERFECT resonating system we live in isn't self-consistent and/or can't be defined in a simple, straight-forward manner mathematically, they haven't understood much of anything I have stated in this document... and/or they are in some form of denial! IMHuO, if denial applies, their denial is FAITHLESS and GODLESS in that they would deny that *GOD* is indeed responsible for many things we "bottom of the pond" mortals consider IMPOSSIBLE. Furthermore, I-1F is no more "impossible" that our perceived reality, because part of our perceived reality is DEFINED by I-1F!

Sincerely,

Larry L. Babcock, PhD
PO Box 14976
Tucson, AZ 85732-4976
lllbabcock@gmail.com