Of all the questions I am asked concerning the disproof, it never ceases to amaze me that the questions I am ready for (or think people will ask), are not the questions I am prepared for.

Preparing to answer technical questions to defend the disproof was my instinctive reaction however, the two most commonly asked questions have been:

1. What made you write the disproof?

2. How long did it take? or How long have you been researching the subject?

I think out of the initial 30 people I gave copies to, 25 would have asked either of these. Other comments have been, You must have put a lot of work into it

It was strange to be asked these initially because I became temporarily mind blocked given I was expecting other questions, so, I had to stop and actually ask myself, Why did I write the disproof?

I have therefore answered these questions first followed by other common ones and also some technical questions more relevant to the scientific/mathematical communities.

"My research and analysis covers a very broad range of human activities. Given I have been involved in different fields of study and analysis for around 20 years, the bits and pieces of the disproof's conception lay in many essays, writing and working files. My physics background from the early nineties always played in the back of my mind as to how the world is actually brought into creation. Quantum physics is a very different world when you begin to understand it.

I am a systems analyst with an engineering background...I understand systems. Everything in the universe resides within a system and so no matter what topic or problem you look at, you can work out what systems it will rely upon and those it may affect.

The work is a culmination of many different trains of thought and research that was triggered by some philosophical/psychological study around 3 years ago.

From the time I started in earnest on this specific topic, around 18months has elapsed. Firstly, I thought it was going to be a 10-12page proof, then 12 became 40 became 70 pages until I'd written not just the disproof but how reality actually forms out of higher dimension. The book is 190pages."

"How complicated is the text?"

"Part-I attempts to explain in 4 different ways the concept of higher dimensional change.

Firstly, through the discussion of ancient thinkers like Zeno and other philosophers.

Secondly, by a simple mathematical discourse on linear continuity (dividing the Real Number Line).

Thirdly, by an examination of change concerning fundamental particles as seen by quantum physicists.

Fourth, by diagrammatic representation of time instance past and present.

Part-II contains more technical jargon and would need a further understanding to comprehend but still contains no mathematics. It is not needed to disprove Darwin's theory.

Bear in mind the disproof can be understood in one diagram.

Proving that diagram is correct however requires 80pages, to do it thoroughly.

"Given the level of research, observation and attention paid to the subject of evolution itself by many acclaimed academics and scientific individuals, how could an apparent scientific researcher deny the evidence that the process of evolution is at all a reality?"

"The debate concerning whether or not evolution is responsible for the actualisation of the universe itself is not the issue in its disproof. As pointed out in the text, the process of transformation that was identified by Darwin is acknowledged formally and allowed to persist however, in name only...in token form. The process of change (be that any change observable whatsoever in the universe at any point in its existence) always occurs outside of our universe. The situation then for any individual attempting a greater understanding is in realising that the physical universe cannot sustain itself, from itself, inside of itself. The entirety of the universe is established outside of itself and maintained there as well, instance to instance. Evolution can be seen to occur, but only higher dimensionally; that is not what Darwin had in mind."

The progressive changes of Neanderthal man for instance to become modern humans are well documented. Logic and pure science could determine that across time, there can be no doubt that we have witnessed a change that is traceable. How in this circumstance can you deny that evolution has occurred?

"Again, there is no disagreement as to what changes have occurred and how we witness each instance of reality across time. What is being identified here is the realm in which those changes happen. They do not occur in our physical universe. The idea that change is happening on Earth is only a limited perspective from worldly observations. Granted it appears to be initially, a valid one. Upon further analysis though, science and keen intellect allow us to cognise that physical change is a contradiction, it is impossible to realise. More correctly: physical instance, higher dimensional change."

Does the disproof imply that God exists?

"It shows that Divine Intelligence resides in a dimension higher than our reality and is responsible for its construction and maintenance i.e. It proves the physical universe is being sustained by a dimension that has the following characteristics:

Is time / space transcendent i.e. time can be traversed forward or reverse, and, any spatial distance can be traversed in zero time

Has accounted for intelligence manipulating time / space events and compensates for that when necessary

Holds a blueprint for the entirety of physical reality

If that implies that God exists in your eyes, so be it."

You claim the disproof is impossible to invalidate, why?

"Because you cannot provide an objective representation for change. Basically, the whole disproof is built on that one facet. Disprove that, and you will have invalidated it"

How can a mathematical disproof not use mathematics?

"The subject of linear continuity, or dividing an interval, is discussed. It is a matter of simple division. There is no complex mathematics whatsoever. The entire text is prose and diagrams. The separate proof concerning the Real Number Line in journal format as well, only uses simple maths."

What is the difference between objective and subjective reality?

"One is real, the other isn't. You can't measure charge for instance, nor can you measure mass. You only ever measure the objective state of two particles that possess them. Property is subjective, state is objective. Mass and charge are subjective and pre-existent. You will never find mass, nor will you ever find charge. To find a magnetic field for instance, you measure the movement of a needle on a compass i.e. you watch the state of many particles change as one object, the needle."

You claim in the text that changes to fundamental particles occur in zero time. Many physicists would argue that. How can you claim this?

"A fundamental particle cannot be split. It is impossible to divide its energy. It must be entire in any one measurement or transformation.

We should also bear in mind the current scientific concessions and viewpoints associated with zero-time transformations. Most physicists currently accept Einstein's theory of Relativity (I do not) which asserts that the speed of light is absolute. Therefore, it is the metric against all velocity in the physical universe and cannot be usurped. A consequence of that is the following. From a photon's perspective (photons are particles of light) any distance in the universe will be traversed in zero time. That means a photon leaving the Sun, traversing the entire length of the universe without impacting on anything, reaches the edge of the universe as soon as it departs the atomic particle that ejected it from the Sun's surface."

Doesn't a fundamental particle's wave function allow it to continuously change?

"No. The wave function of a particle tells you where you are likely to find it, as an entire particle. The wave packet is not the particle itself; it is a tally of probable positions. In the transition of an electron from one orbital to another for instance, it may only exist in the first, the second, or as a super-positioning of both, as probabilities. It therefore exists in the first orbital or in the second orbital. Now, if we try and measure it while it is changing, we will get an unrealistic discrete value for its state.

Please understand the following:

The transition between two quantum states must occur within a region of uncertainty in zero time as a straight mathematical addition or subtraction of probabilities. An attempt to acquire the exact point of transition inside that region of uncertainty will result in a probabilistic discrete error, not a continuous one i.e. the transition cannot be measured continuously from one side of its entirety to the other. The transition then remains concealed within a region of probabilistic uncertainty. There is never an actual in that region nor is there ever a continuous transition. Continuity is a concept; it is not achievable.

If there is never an actual as you put it, how can we measure anything?

" Consider our electron in either orbital. While in its first orbital, it could be anywhere. If it absorbs energy, its second orbital which has a different shape, will be where it could now appear. In transition, it could be in either area. If we measure it in the first orbital and know with 100% accuracy that it is indeed in that orbital, then we will have 0% chance of knowing for instance, its location in that orbital. Particles remain concealed under a veil of probability which must be distributed between the two aspects needed to provide their complete description. If we nail its position in one orbital to 50% accuracy, then we will for instance, only know its spin to perhaps 50% accuracy as well. Measurements therefore become a matter of staying outside the probabilistic region of manifestation of the particle with the concession that it is in reality, but not able to be precisely pinpointed i.e. we only need particles to interact outside of their probabilistic region of manifestation, to construct reality. The universe prevents us from knowing with 100% certainty, a particle's state."


"Read the disproof."

Doesn't an electron exist as a haze around an atomic nucleus?

"No. Consider a ball of smoke surrounding a microscopic atomic nucleus. If we have a magic camera that could take a snapshot in near zero time, we would see an empty area with one smoke particle at a random position. Time exposure over a long period would slowly cause the area to become smoke filled. At any one time, the electron is only present at one position. In reality though, we can never determine that position with 100% accuracy (nor take photos). So we just draw a hazy soccer ball and say, the electron is to be found in this region with 100% certainty. Note also, that reality is defined outside of that haze. Inside, we only ever get errors involved with the state of what we are measuring, rendering that entity, unrealistic."

I hold qualifications in mathematics and am curious as to how you claim zero differentials are a contradiction given they are used on a minute to minute basis everywhere in the world in the calculation of integrals?

"This aspect was deliberately left out of the main text as it was growing too large for its anticipated size. I would have liked to have included it because it is a perfect example in displaying the contrast between the two realms of reality, discrete and continuous and adds great conceptual dynamics for those learned in integral calculus.

When we perform an integral, we do not work with the time / space representation of the function in question. We must first perform a higher dimensional transformation of it i.e. it is raised to a higher power. F(x) = x2 for instance becomes x3/3 + c. The domain of values is then taken as infinite and therefore, as pointed out in the proof concerning The Real Number Line, the interval collapses given the differential between points goes to zero as a requirement of absolute continuity. We therefore only need take the limits of the higher dimensional representation because the coordinates of every point on a continuous interval exist at the same location i.e. the interval is a Unit Division as pointed out in Section 2 of the disproof. That is why only the limits of the time / space function are used in conjunction with its higher dimensional representation.

An iteration or numerical analysis however is needed to perform an integral concerning only the time / space function itself. That is an obvious association with a discrete realm i.e. a discrete continuum or the Naturals must be used to perform the integration in time / space; we use F(x) = x2 over perhaps a billion values. Performing the integration with a zero differential in time / space is impossible."

How does a particle's objective time / space co-ordinate then, connect with its subjective property?

"Time being discrete allows the re-creation of reality instance to instance so the state of a particle can be altered (according to its higher dimensional representation) in time / space as it interacts. Without that discontinuity, there is no way of being able to link subjective phenomena, like probability and property, to objective entity. That is why currently, physics is struggling with interpretations that become massively complex, heavy and unable to resolve a connection between the two. Paradoxes emerge because the two realms of reality have not been formally differentiated. Under an assumption of continuous time, there can be no boundary between what is measured as subjective (for instance a particle's wave function) and what is measured as objective (for instance position). Even Max Born (who made these discoveries concerning probability over 80 years ago) wanted the wave function to be associated with something that is real. His science however, never identified any such relationship. Wave functions remain higher dimensional, they possess no objective attributes."

Will we ever be able to surmount the inherent limitation of probability in our measurements?

"No. Deterministic universes cannot contain self-willed intelligence."


"Read the disproof."