Our Universe Milky Way Galaxy
Cao Junfeng
Dalian Village Linsheng Town Shujiatun District Shenyang.China.110108
Tel:86-24-89488770
E-mail: coldpr@pub.sy.ln.cn

Foreword

Our universe Milky Way Galaxy produced the Solar System, the Solar System produced the Earth. In my viewpoint, The nature is composed by the majority of Cold Quantum and the minority of Hot Quantum, the combination of Cold Quantum and the Hot Quantum forms the material, the aggregation of the material forms celestial bodies, Cold Quantum pushes the movement of celestial bodies, please watch my web: "www.coldpressure.com.cn", my web can explain this for you. Today, I’d like to say some thing about how the Milky Way Galaxy is producing fixed star unceasingly, how fixed star is producing the planet such as the Earth, and how the fixed star and planets are disappearing unceasingly.

Key word: The Cold Quantum Pressure, the Hot Quantum Pressure, Electron Subgroup, the Produce of the Fixed Star, the produce of the planet, the Circulation of Galaxy.

The Milky Way Galaxy is a big whirlpool galaxy composed by many fixed stars, the Milky Way Galaxy is composed by many ancient fixed stars, originally these stars were just like iridescent cloud as we see nowadays clouds stacking layer upon layer in the sky, and under the encircle pressure of Cold Quantum, finally they have been pressed into many fixed stars. The Cold Quantum of outer space flows into the Milky Way Galaxy, encircles and pushes the movement of the Milky Way Galaxy. The Hot Quantum released by the fixed stars of the Milky Way Galaxy bars the fixed stars to be pressed into together by Cold Quantum, so fixed star can keep a distance from the pushes of the Hot Quantum. The most of the calorescence energy released by the fixed stars ...

Carl Johnson (by email):

Do you agree that a photon can "disintegrate" into an electron and positron?
And that for Conservation reasons, they necessarily go off in exact opposite
directions?

Many years ago, while I was still in High School and before I got my Degree
in Physics, that thought seemed to be very useful regarding "where the
Universe came from". I have also always seen the "ad-hoc" aspects of a "big
bang", and the actual reasoning does not actually require that
"instantaneous" event.

I imagined a rather different, and far more logical possibility. Say that
there was some specific location, where supplies of "energy" were able to
arrive (which requires another stage of this reasoning, but which is just as
logical). All I would need is to have the energy "disintegrate" into
electron-positron and proton-antiproton pairs with the SINGLE new
restriction that all the "matter" particles went in one direction and all
the "anti-matter" particles went in exactly the opposite direction. "WE"
would then wind up with our Universe, which would then all appear to have
come from a specific small initial location. (But I claim that it was over
an extended time rather than as an instantaneous "Big Bang" event, and that
it may even still be occurring today!)

No "weird assumptions" are then necessary! The countless assumptions
related to the Big Bang are not needed at all. Actually, Newton's Laws are
sufficient to describe nearly everything!

An interesting consequence of this is that the Conservation laws would
require an EXACT "mirror image" anti-Universe!

In nearly every way, this approach is "purely logical" with NO requirements
for claiming that "different rules applied" at any time! In comparison, the
Big Bang seems rather silly to me!

Carl Johnson
Degree from U of Chicago

Carl,

I agree yours is an interesting way of looking at matter and antimatter - and of the possibility of a mirror image universe.

Anyway, I do recommend you download Yurth's paper and have a read. It puts together some interesting ideas about how matter comes about to begin with, and how the formation of matter is depending on certain parameters.

- - -

Cao Junfeng,

I have shortened your comment sending readers to your site for the whole article.

Did you actually download and read the paper by Yurth and Ayres, or are you just promoting your own views?

Sepp

Robert Kerr (by email):

Once you recognize that matter concentrates as a result of the interference of mass concentrations with the chaotic motion of surrounding fluid particles, the only necesary explanation required is an aethereal fluid. The particle is the photon and its pressure is temperature. This is established by the correction of DeBroglies equation to recognize that Einstein's Equation should be nm times c squared. This also explains Quantum Theory.

Bob Kerr

My comments are directed at the notion above that the Hubble Expansion of the universe suggests that it started suddenly with “The Big Bang”.

To investigate how the universe may have evolved over time one is likely to be more successful starting with reasonable interpretations of the observed changes of it. Namely, with the Hubble expansion, and then investigate how Hubble’s expansion alters our ideas of the presence of an eather.
If an eather fluid be present then it must be expand such that its fluid elements recede from each other in accord with the Hubble law. This Hubble’s expansion of the eather is the only one that satisfies the modern Copernican view that the recessional motion of the galaxies and the eather appear the same on a large scale for observers in any galaxy of the universe.
In the paper, entitled “The Pervasive Hubble Expansion of the Universe”, which can be down loaded below, one investigates consequences of this assumption when the eather is an ideal monatomic adiabatic fluid. All analyses are in exact accord with Euler’s nonlinear equations.
The analyses suggest fundamental changes to physics and astronomy that are zero at the present time, t = 0. But they increase at the exceedingly slow rates of about one part in 10.5 billion parts per year back in time, and decrease at the same rate as time moves forward. These changes resolve outstanding questions and paradoxes which have puzzled and irritated scientists for many years.
Among these changes is one that galaxies, as we now observe them, likely did not exist back in time beyond cosmological red shifts, v/c equal to about 4. Before that time the universe likely was different and will likely remain unobservable. Moreover, as the distance back in time approaches the “The Big Bang” singularity our theories are likely to fail to describe to describe the universe. However, they may at this time be adequate to describe mathematically the nature of strings, nucleons, electrons, light, material bodies, fields, the solar system, galaxies, etc.

Sincerely, Leif Rongved

www.drleifrongved.com

Richard Cattermoul comments by email:

Thanks for the update and how pure information builds the universe.

On Page 117 they write: , the authors have opted to define Consciousness in terms which attempt to embrace both scientific and metaphysical conceits

I think they mean concepts.

When I first read the book, I think I equated consciousness with the physical vacuum - that they are one and the same thing; i.e. the universe is a sea of consciousness within which the physical universe manifests itself. This being the case, consciousness becomes truly dimensionless and, as it were, operates outside of space and time constraints or limitations. It becomes the rock bottom from which everything else materialises and would exist the other side of nothing. In fact I see 'nothing' as the boundary between consciousness (imagination) and the real, physical universe. Imagination is real yet imaginary. It is imaginary in the sense that it cannot be touched or felt or seen and definitely occupies no space nor time. Imagination is real because it seems to me to be the instrument by which I infuse in these words a sense of meaning - divine purpose almost. This iMac has a 19" screen - don't you get a sense of awe Sepp when you think about exactly what we are looking at when we look at the iMac screen. I started computer programming back in 1967 when computers were comparatively speaking primitive monstrosities and the term Graphical User Interface was still waiting to be invented.

'Nothing' is real but lacks substance. Imagination (or consciousness or intelligence) provides the meaning - which is intellectual and abstract. The physics provides the tools in the shape of matter, time, space and energy to transform the vision into the reality. Intelligence however can only be utilised and exploited by beings who are sufficiently and appropriately well constructed which is why monkeys and other animals for example can never achieve the same kind of intelligence as humans.

As a physicist, mathematician, philosopher and software engineer who programmed in assembler and C on Unix and VMS operating platforms using Ingres relational database, I try to make sense of what takes place between an idea entering my head to the pressure my finger applies to a key resulting in the display of these words.

Having reread page 117 (several times actually), I think I may have been wrong to deduce the above, and that what the authors are actually saying is that consciousness is derived from the physical vacuum in the same way that everything else is. This of course would mean that we are no closer to understanding what consciousness is.

In the Paper on Global Scaling Theory, the author writes: This means that our universe is in a constant energy exchange with other universes.

For the first time in my life I have been given a number of good reasons for believing that there is not just the one universe but others. In fact, the peculiar nature of infinity means that anything, no matter how big, will always only ever be infinitesimally small compared to infinity. It therefore makes sense that there must be an infinite number of universes, all infinitely small compared to infinity.

And yet, if you take a look at the latest pictures from Hubble -

we can't help but get lost in awe at the enormity of our own universe.

Richard

- - -

Sepp's reply:

Dear Richard,

Yes, I believe they do mean concepts, and I think that your first impression of the definition was quite correct. At least to my mind the authors meant that consciousness is not "part of" or "derived from" the physical vacuum but is at its origin, is one with it without being subject to it.

As for your 19-inch screen (lucky you!), yes, it is quite amazing where we got to in just four decades. I remember those first screens and the DOS interface - there is a great difference. But then - it is paltry compared to the physical universe, where the infinite honeycomb (as Mike Emery calls it) acts as the screen, upon which consciousness constructs our reality. As we see reality developing on the screen when watching a movie, we see it developing in the physical universe, only it's infinitely more refined with more perceptions (not just sound and sight as in our computers) and three-dimensional or holographic instead of flat-surface.

Thanks for the link to the Hubble images. Spectacular and wonderful. Quite amazing.

Sepp

NP comments by email:

Hi Joseph: For consideration:

The human concepts/assumptions from our limited perspective of a "beginning" with a "creation event" must be false. Probably the only truly knowable thing in this universe is we cannot be of it and remotely begin to comprehend that which underpins eternity . We can only describe surface layers that in reality may only be mathmatical wishfull thinking, like the crystal spheres of old. We cannot as yet comprehend the base ecology of this planet, yet cosmologists act as a new priesthood, proclaiming unseen forces and phenomena created with indecipherable mathmatical formulae. Where have we seen that all before? To proclaim in any way that the universe is reducible to a formula invented by a mutant monkey hanging on for dear life to this lonely planet seems hubristic. To say that "the universe is built on pure information" seems another adjunct to quantum mechanics? In any event, this must also be false, because it reduces the universe to a human invented singularity, similar to what the Buddhists describe as the purely human creation of the paternal singularity "God". The concepts "is built" or "information" seem woefully inadequate and such statements would appear grandiose without further qualification and quasi religious. I'm thinking Douglass Adams.

Perhaps it might be qualified that any such cosmological theories be characterized as minutely scratching the surface of reality and that any self styled "priesthood" is not consistent with more advanced concepts of science ethics. I think it was Einstein who predicted that all his theories would one day be proven false, he understood that is the way of it, the search is infinite, our proofs are momentarily adequate to describe with some accuracy and predictability the world around us. Guided by humility, science can avoid co-option by organized religion, which is an ongoing threat. We are skidding down the slippery slope right now, especially in my country.

Given the technology spawned by science, we risk a truly dreadful existence if that dynamic continues to unfold, evident in many government regimes of noteriety these days. A techno fascist inquisition ..... upon us.
NP

- - -

(Sepp:)

yes, we do tend to overestimate our own ability to know, and I readily admit that I don't have the answers we are looking for - and by necessity, I have perhaps oversimplified what the paper I reference says.

What this post is intended to do is shake our "certainties" about how the universe came into being and who or what is "behind" it. As a first step, we have to admit we don't know, then we can look around and investigate, and I think that Yurth and Ayres have done just that with their paper. They pull together much of the recent thinking that is different from what the 'standard model' of physics tells us.

Let's just take this step by little step. I recommend download and a read of the paper.

Kind regards
Sepp

(Roger Rydin by email):

I tried to post the following comment to this article and was rejected.
Take a look and see if it is malicious or simply informative.

Roger

In looking at the above postings, I am led to believe that none of the above people have taken the time to look at and analyze actual astronomical data. If they had, they would realize that these concepts they espouse have no hope of actually explaining the situation. I have summarized much of this data in the paper I will present at the May 2007 meeting of the Natural Philosophy Alliance at U. Conn. in Storrs, CT, entitled, "A Case Against Tired Light and the Big Bang."

What people seem to ignore is that the data from Sloan surveys show a symmetric and decreasing density of galaxies with distance from us, occurring in all directions. There are six sets of deep redshift pencil surveys that go out about 4.5 billion light years: North and South of the plane of the Milky Way, at 45 degrees to the plane in the Hercules and anti-Hercules directions, and at 45 degrees to the plane and 90 degrees from the other 45 degree survey called the SA68 and anti-SA68 directions. The data are all periodic with a period of about 400 million light years. The data are all symmetric, and all drop as 1-over-r-squared when cone spread is considered. Such a situation can only correspond to a spherical movement of galaxies in the radial direction about an origin in the vicinity of Virgo. All the pencil data are highly cross correlated, meaning they were produced by a common cause.

Secondly, the age of the universe has to be more than 100 billion years, and not the 13.7 billion years given by the Big Bang. The accepted number is inconsistent with a physical expansion from a point at finite speeds, after which the light has traveled back to us for about 13 billion years, which at least doubles the accepted age. It can be argued that it also takes an extremely long time to form galaxies from atoms by pure gravitational attraction.

It is much easier to form galaxies if black hole seeds are already there. Also, if you consider Reginald Cahill's new theory of gravity that contains an extra quantum term proportional to the fine structure constant, then galaxy formation becomes much easier.

Cahill's theory has explained anomalous experimental bore hole g(r) data, has correlated experimentally measured galaxy masses to their central black hole masses, and has explained experimental spiral galaxy rotation curves without needing dark matter because the extra term gives a 1/r behavior inside the galaxy.

Finally, the apparent inconsistency between our motion away from Virgo as measured from the CMB dipole anisotropy data, and large scale drift toward Virgo as "measured" against the Hubble flow can only be explained if both we and Virgo are on the same side of the origin and moving in the same general direction but at somewhat different speeds.

In any event, if these authors want to have their ideas considered seriously, they should be able to explain this experimental data as a matter of course.

Roger Rydin,
Associate Professor Emeritus of Nuclear Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Roger,

I am sorry to see you were not able to post a comment on the article. Don't know what the system is doing here. There are some anti-spam barriers, but it is a mystery of how exactly they work. In any case, I have copied your comment and posted it.

My comment to it:

I may have been remiss in clearly saying that the authors of the paper I refer to (Yurth and Ayres) are not in support of the big bang. They are challenging the theory of a big bang, together with much of the rest of the 'standard model' that pervades physics thinking today.

By the way, whenever you would like to put your article up for others to see on this site, I'm ready to post it. Seems you are making a very interesting contribution to the arguments against the big bang hypothesis.

Michael comments (by email):

Dear Sepp,

Yes, but what is the nature of that "information?" We all know that at every level of existence there is an "order," but what is the nature of that order? This sounds like a rehashing of David Bohm's implicate order to me, and my experience with so many "innovators" today is that they are innovating nothing. They simply rename things and call that renaming novel. Well, yes it is - the names have been changed. It's like calling remote viewing a "new science," which it isn't - It's simply a rehashing of mental telepathy that's been around for millennia.

What's really amazing is how some scientists just swallow this renaming as literally new when it isn't at all. Have any of them actually studied esoteric knowledge that's been around for millennia now?

So, I ask again - What is the actual nature of that "information?" And what is it that causes existence to follow it? I'd call it the same "Divine Pattern and Intent" that has been described over and over again for thousands of years. I'd really suggest that some of these people study ancient knowledge before they begin thinking about patting each other on the back.

"A rose by any other name....
....is still a rose, and it's God's rose."

And quite frankly, I find this "innovation" quite sad, just as I do "new inventions" patented on technology people like John Keeley were using well over a century ago, with no recognition whatsoever, while praise is mounted on the so-called innovators.

- - -

(Sepp):

Dear Michael,

let's not rush to judgement.

I admit that my treatment of the paper that I reference may lack the necessary detail. But the paper is there to download and read.

I think we should pass judgement only after actually reading what Yurth and Ayres have put together, after we have ascertained whether their view adds anything new to our knowledge or even whether it effectively challenges the 'standard model' of physics...

Fascinating!!

As you know, Steven Greer says that the physical universe is formed on an underlying structure of thought or spirit matter.

I had an amazing experience when I was about 21. The circumstances: I was at Sussex University, and I was going through probably the worst period of my life, and worse was to come. Strangely enough, despite the horridness of my life at that point, or perhaps because of it, I began to have a very weird but wonderful experience that lasted for about a week.

Every night, rather than slowly falling asleep and entering unconsciousness/dreamstate as is usual, I would drift rapidly into a totally lucid waking dream state that lasted literally all night without break, till I opened my eyes in the morning. Throughout the whole night I merged into a realm of universal consciousness where two things became clear: one, I was in a state of fusion and perpetual 'dialogue' with infinite 'voices' throughout the universe, expressing endless beautiful things, philosophy, poetry, wisdom, all fascinating, blissful and continued. The other thing was that throughout all of this I was aware of the movement of my spirit within my physical body, and I perceived that there was a rotating, 'vortex' kind of spiraling of spirit and matter that mirrored the same motion within the entire universe. It was really amazing, like a druggy euphoria without the drugs, and with no sense of delusion, just a sense of total fusion with all phenomena in the living universe. I was totally happy.

One night during this strange week, I was sleeping on the floor at the bedsit of a couple of friends, a boyfriend and girlfriend, and while I was in this state of lucid dreaming, hearing these infinite 'thoughts' and enjoying the infinite rotations and folding swirls of this vortex within and outside of me, I noticed to my amazement that the words in my mind were suddenly being voiced by the young man sleeping in bed next to his girlfriend. I realised he was sharing the same visions and hearing the same thoughts. I got so excited that I ended up pulling out of the state and 'waking up'. His girlfriend then muttered 'that's beautiful', and both drifted back off into deep sleep. The next morning I asked them if they remembered anything and he didn't remember anything, but she did, she remembered that he was saying something very poetic and philosphical, full of wisdom.

However, the sad part of it all is that of course, it didn't last more than a week, and that I don't remember anything specific of those words and thoughts!

I suppose it's one of the reasons why a few years later I became a buddhist, because I'd had this amazing experience of being fused with and a part of a living universe that was composed of thought and wisdom.

(Sepp's comment:)

This experience I feel backs up what is written here:

"My question after reading the paper was: What exactly is it that links the world of pure spirit with the world of matter? How does the information, the idea, take form in such a highly tangible way? What is the property that is a common denominator between the most tenuous levels of information being transmitted and 'imprinted' in the universe and all the resulting forms of matter, from the first sub-atomic particles to atoms, molecules, the DNA and on to stellar systems?

To me, it seems that spin and harmony must link the world of spirit, idea and information with the world of matter and physical existence.

Everything in this material universe seems to exhibit the characteristics of chirality, of spin, of vortex, somewhere in its structure. This is true of massive structures, such as galaxies and stellar systems, but it also shows in the pattern of growth of plants and animals. Spin or, as I called in an earlier article, vortex, definitely seems to play an important role in all physical manifestations, from electromagnetic phenomena to sub-atomic particles, from the beautiful patterns in certain life forms to the spirals of our DNA.

And here is an essay by Mike 'The Cowboy' Emery discussing the spiritual side of things. According to him, spin is also a common attribute of Space/God. Mike discusses genetics and changes in DNA. But see for yourself."

Carl Johnson again - by email:

Did you notice that with my approach, there is NO problem at all with
"having to explain where matter came from"? It is simply a simple and
standard nuclear Physics process. Indeed, the fact that it is so
"traditional" is why I see the significance of the electron and proton
exiting in EXACTLY opposite directions (for Conservation).

There is ONE aspect of my concept that I have always wondered about! If
true, then there must be that one location (somewhere) that would
necessarily be a "physical tunnel" between our matter Universe and an
identical anti-matter Universe. In other words, on first thought, it seemed
possible to me that it might be possible to pass through it to visit the
"other universe". However, assuming the two Universes were EXACTLY
identical in every detail, that would mean that there was an anti-Carl in
the other Universe with the same idea, and we would simply crash and
mutually annihilate inside that "tunnel"! Bummer!

I had mentioned the "previous stage", of where the "energy" came from to
drive this process. I speculated that because we know that energy supplies
can be "out-of-phase" with each other, and that two such "waves" or any
other forms of energy would "null out" if exactly identical and exactly 180
degrees out-of-phase, I speculated that "nothing" had (somehow) split into
two such "out-of-phase energy supplies. Again, I needed to postulate that
they headed in opposite directions. The one "energy" drove the "matter and
anti-matter" universes. So I actually came up with "two more" identical
Universes, too!

I never "wanted" mirror image Universes, but could not avoid that they must
exist!

It has always struck me as rather peculiar and even funny, but compared to
all the theories that Cosmogonists have put forward, whether Big Bang or any
other, I suspect that my approach is far more logical. And isn't that what
Physics is supposed to be, logic?

Carl Johnson

- - -

(Sepp):

Hi Carl,

I suppose if you view "photons" as a given, you could say there is no need to go further back to explain how matter comes about.

But let's inquire: What are photons, and what are they made out of?

There are few who attempt to answer that type of question, and I think that the paper I referenced in the article is a notable exception, taking things back further to its origins. At least it's an attempt to look at what we kind of know is there, and how to interpret the things we see.

I still recommend download of the paper and a read.

By the way, is your approach posted anywhere on the net where people can read up on what you are saying?

Roger Rydin again (by email):

It was clear that the authors (Yurth and Ayres) challenge the Big Bang. They say, "The model has been challenged because it fails to satisfy a number of unresolved issues identified by scientists who are not afraid to challenge this notion." Unfortunately, it is not a question of unresolved issues but rather of fundamental inconsistencies of the Big Bang with respect to increasingly better cosmological data. I believe that the assumptions of the General Relativity basis of the Big Bang are violated by this data!

Without actually reading their text, I can agree with one of their statements about their new model working, "at ten distinct quantum-defined scales of natural evolution." A colleague, Bob Heaston, has been presenting papers at NPA meetings where he organizes phenomena in distinct ranges according to scale multiples of Planck's constant. He proposes replacing the Weak Force with a Quantum Force. Cahill's new gravity formulation contains the fine structure constant, which in turn contains Planck's constant. That also gives gravity a quantum aspect that Cahill says explains the apparent instantaneous action of gravity, or Newton's Action at a Distance.

....

As an extra comment, Carl Johnson seems to think that matter went one way and anti-matter went the other. Since the back-to-back release is isotropic (at least for positron/negatron pairs), the ensemble would be a net neutral uniform mix of matter and anti-matter and not a planar separation of plusses and minuses, which of course would then strongly attract each other across the interface and repel each other on either side to interrupt separation.

Michael comments again (by email):

Dear Sepp,

I'm sorry if I appeared not to have read their words before writing, but this isn't the case. The standard model is, however, far from what scientists would find if they had done their esoteric knowledge homework, which no one in their community has, and pursued it. I know senior member of the NSF who claims to have a "full working knowledge" of just a bit of esoterica after he spent a few months chatting with students, when in fact,after discussing what he claims to know so authentically, he hasn't a clue,and has no interest in looking any further. Perhaps if he went deeper, hemight well have an epiphany, a moment of realization, but that will never happen in his lifetime.

The question remains as to what they define "information" as, and if they had done their esoteric homework, they would have found themselves in the midst of a very long history of descriptions of "information" of which they have written, starting with David Bohm's implicate order (read "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" and see for yourself) and going backwards from there. But do you see any reference to Bohm or anyone else dealing with that "information" of which they wrote? Of course he was blackballed from science decades ago for his thinking.

You'll recall Princeton's PEAR research conducted within their engineering department for almost 30 years with virtually constant constant assailing from the "scientific community, which rigorously proved the mental control of the physical world, among other things. Much of the peerage in science refused to pay attention to their results.

So does this mean that what has been around for millennia in the researches of people scoffed at and discredited by "science" can only find its way into their acceptance by re-labeling which they can somehow find palatable? Quite possible. However, had they been as objective about researches as they have always claimed they are, we would already be so far ahead of what they have allowed.

I mean let's face it, Sepp. Maxwell wrote a theory and math for the physical world that was altered, and made unavailable ever since, over century ago, and only a small cadre of dilligent researchers led by Tom Bearden and a few others has been battling for recognition of the actual content of his Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism that was stripped of its real meaning by the same community and left that way since Heaviside's "editing out the superfluous" in this monumental work.

Will what Yurth and Ayres make a dent in that gigantic stone wall "accepted science" has built around itself by using new terminology to describe what others found centuries ago? Perhaps after the old hardline guard has died off a la Max Planck, at which point it will be suddenly found so self-evident as to warrant the description of any remarks about the effort it took over millennia to get anyone to pay attention superfluous.

Meanwhile, the arctic thaw is freeing over 400 gigatons of a greenhouse gas over 20x as bad as CO2 at an unstoppably accelerating rate into the atmosphere. Perhaps they'll decide to think about that "information" further before many times that quantity of that same gas starts bubbling up from the warmed ocean floors as well, to such a level that most of us start dying off from its toxicity, if not its rapid oxidation. And then again, perhaps not.

- - -

(Sepp):

Dear Michael,

I still believe you are rushing to judgement without having read their paper. What is in my article is only a small part. The vast majority of the paper you can only see if you download it. The link is:

http://tinyurl.com/2uxnpo

While I don't know how far they have done their esoteric homework, they do mention Bohm and his implicate order in two places, (see below) and they also mention Bearden and other researchers. As a matter of fact, there are many references to Bearden's work in their paper.

Here are the Bohm references on pages 4 and 20:

page 4:
Y-Bias interactions define the nature and extent to which all scalar interactions in the Physical Vacuum satisfy the SOC demands of fractal boundedness or unboundedness, which are observed to operate across the infinite expanses of time and space, in realtime. By this means, materiality in the physical world eventually unfolds and enfolds at all scales, as Bohm rightly suggested.

Page 20:
This is the primary function identified by Kafatos/Nadeau which renders 'background reality-as-it-is' self-referential at all scales. This function is also the operative dynamic which drives the Implicate Order postulated by Bohm.

Please do get the actual paper. It is a good read.