WMAP Readings and EMT

 [Long Title]

“Correspondence of the WMAP readings for Baryon Matter, Dark Matter and Dark Energy with the Dynamic Architecture of Expanding Matrix Theory”


WMAP…short for Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) is a NASA Explorer mission that launched June 2001, to August 19th 2010. WMAP’s  mission was to  make fundamental  measurements of the properties of our universe.

Special note: A more recent, June 10, 2016 news release by NASA and the European space agency confirms an added dark energy induced acceleration of 5 to 9% above the WMAP readings cited below. Once these are assimilated within the other values (baryon matter and dark matter), it will be interesting to see how the new results compare to the (fixed) predictions of EMT see: (NASA – Hubble). As noted, heretofore only a dark energy value has been given. Any such percentage increase in dark energy must by correlation result in a corresponding decrease in the value of either dark matter or baryon matter…or both. The tables below attest that such changes should move the discovered results even closer to EMT predicted values.

May 24, 2016 – There has been a flurry of articles by physicists hypothesizing on the meaning of dark energy. See: “Could Dark Energy Contribute to the Arrow of Time”? If you have already been following expanding matrix theory, you will already know that this is a principal tenet of its internal logic.

March 9, 2018 – at this time, there have been more readings of the total energy(s) in the universe and whereas they were moving closer to EMT’s fixed predictions…now they’re moving away. I don’t know what this means, but we do know that things are always in flux in experimental fields, so I’m of course curious about future measurements.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy

This article has never said that WMAP’s matching values are dark matter or dark energy, only that they closely match values that already exist within EMT as something else that is a natural continuum of of all energy.

The introduction describes our universe as a bubble or dent in a large (but not infinite) augmenting field of energy that distributes itself according to the values outlined below. The dent is a constant while the energy augments. Such augmentation is inconspicuous because the potential remains constant (it is not the magnitude of potential that causes dynamics but the difference in potential).

(In order to perceive what we are experiencing at reality because we exist in an  expanding matrix, see; Spatial Perspective and the Arrow of Time)

Expanding matrix theory has a simple premise; that both the energy and the space in our universe are made up of the same light-like or expanding energy. All energy transforms in exactly the same way in that it expands outwards into the void. However, this energy has sensitivity to itself, so that it expands much easier outwards (where there is no resistance) than inwards where there is more energy and hence more resistance. It is our location in the matrix as observers, which make space and matter appear different…matter intrinsically stable and stationary and space, a transformation medium for light and forces. The void beyond our universe should not be confused with the transformation space we identify with reality. It has neither texture nor any other physical properties. Our sense of reality coalesces from the geometry and transformation laws of only the energy component itself. The theory identifies three energy peaks that we as observers recognize in different ways; volume, surface and empty space. From early in the theory, the mass-percentage, as volume of baryon matter in the universe was predicted to be; 3.9810717055349…% of the total with surface having its own discrete value. This prediction was made at a time when baryon matter was assumed to dominate the universe. Although the theory had always predicted an accelerating universe, the discovery of the two elements referred to as dark matter and dark energy was completely unanticipated. Whereas I had hoped there might be a way to detect the extra energy gradients of EMT, the best I’d hoped for in the short term was a discovery that the universe was accelerating (not just expanding as Big Bang Theory had then postulated). When the WMAP results were published, I saw the possibility that the resultant measurements might coincide with the those values predicted by EMT but didn’t dare hope that they would produce numbers so close to the prescribed values as they did. The WMAP values are not identical to EMT but so close; I am optimistic that they will eventually harmonize with those values. Recent discoveries seem to be moving in that direction.

The WMAP Readings

The WMAP readings were at first compared with EMT only as a speculation because EMT suggested that there would be far more energy in the universe than previous theories had postulated with only approximately 3.98% of the total being baryon matter and most of the rest being an invisible form of energy. As the invisible quality of dark matter and dark energy closely correspond to this 96.02% of invisible energy in EMT, it seemed sensible to consider it. The comparison was interesting. It can be seen below that a close correlation appears between the dimensional hierarchy of EMT and the percentages of dark energy and dark matter found by the WMAP observations. In the charts below; (Table 1) shows the current WMAP readings (2003) compared to EMT predictions. (Table 2) explains how the EMT values are derived. Because the actual measured distributions of dark matter seems to be somewhat random, I’m not exactly sure what the similarities mean as within the context of EMT they should be a continuum, closely confined to baryon matter. There are two alternative explanations that I can conceive within the context of EMT. One has to do with the explanation of what space is within EMT; that it is not a true dimensional entity, but a time-field that simulates dimensions. The other is that, perhaps there is a projection effect, so that what appears to be a random distribution of dark matter only appears to be so on the galactic scale. Neither explanation is satisfying, however, it is worth noting that the three totals for each form of energy, for the entire universe, coincide to such a remarkable degree between WMAP’s observed values and these theoretical values.

As elaborated lower down on this page, simply said; our tactile reality is embodied within the first five dimensions or energy exponents. Exponents six to ten appear as inverted (mirror) images of the lower five. By inverted images, the inference is that the images reduce inwards from five down to one, whereas they increase outwards, from six to ten. To elaborate, dimensions one to three are volumetric values; four and five are surface dimensions. One can grasp a sense of why by reflecting on the correlation between the volume of a sphere and its surface membrane.  Our sense of visual and tactile reality is essentially an interaction between surface dimensions (four and five) operating via the transparent spatial (virtual) surface six and seven and the spatial values, eight to ten. When we hold an object in space, we assume that it is occupying part of the spatial volume but there is a subtle difference between the real sense and the actual sense of what is happening. In the actual sense (the true sense) everything, including the empty exterior space is the same continuous transformation medium but in the real sense, the material area is its own space, displacing the spatial volume, seemingly imposing an exterior field that distorts the spatial sheath around it. This is the distortion of space referred to in relativity theory. It is not a distortion as such but the normal continuation of the transformation geometry as perceived by a real observer who erroneously views the surface condition as being static (the quantum system represents another layer of complexity where the simplicity branches into multiple families of transformation, but the dynamic geometry remains the same). The key to grasping what is happening is to see the expansion as differentially layered energy gradients, where the dynamic value for the surface of matter is set to zero. This would lead to the conclusion that the inward component has a negative value and the outward component, a positive value. This corresponds to the quantum view of gravity; that extrapolates gravity as a negative energy and inversely to the new discoveries; (seen when peering outwards into cosmic space), that there is a positive force moving everything apart. All of this has to be understood within the context of the axiom that; physics is a result of differences in potential, not absolute magnitude of potential.

The three volumetric dimensions of matter are manifest in a gravitational field as weight and are separate and distinct dimensions from its two visible surface dimensions as well as the two invisible mirror-image surface dimensions. Our immediate interactive reality then operates via seven external dimensions that manifest themselves to be what we interpret as forces or carriers of forces. We perceive the origin of this action to be the three internal volumetric dimensions. For certain types of interactions, the surface dimensions four and five become obviously implicated. As our conscious reality overlaps the actuality, these divisions can become blurred.

The configuration of the 3 divisions of energy coincidentally match Einstein’s formula for energy: E=mc² squared (if mass as the volume is treated as c³). I include the expression because I believe there is an underlying reason and hope the similarity will draw attention to possible connections. A net repulsion results, even though part of that repulsion manifests in our reality as attraction. That is to say, gravity itself is part of an expanding matrix.

Early on it was anticipated that these discrete quantities might eventually surface via some previously unknown macroscopic measurements. The WMAP data (and now ESA) produced results that were surprisingly close to these predictions.  As demonstrated below Table 2, reveals the remarkable way corresponding values extracted from the theory.

Table 1 demonstrates how the conclusions from Table 2 compare with the WMAP astrophysical measurements for baryon matter, dark matter and dark energy.

Table 2  explains how the energy hierarchies are arrived at and how they merge.

Together they offer a degree of order to what otherwise appear as random and unconnected values.

Note – Table 1 has not yet been updated to reflect the recent data from NASA and the European space agency.

Table 1 WMAP comparison to EMT

Table 1

Below, the 3 classes of energy with c4 to c7 combined as the 2nd (middle) unit.  That is:  c4 and c5 because these represent tangible reality (surface) and its mirror counterpart c6, c7 combine like two sides of a ribbon.

EMT comparitive breakdown

Table 2

Columns and their meanings (Table 2):


c written as exponents one to ten.


c1 derived as the 10th root of 100%. cX exponents expressed as percentages of c10 equaling 100%.


Extracted values; c3, c7, and c10 as percentage of values from column b.

c3 = baryon matter = m (c3 also embodies the values of c1 and c2).   (c4) (c5) = lower surface energy + (c6) (c7) = upper surface energy (mirrors of each other). c10 = upper spatial matrix energy (also embodies values c8,  c9)


Notes about column c.

The Margins of Error

It can be seen in Table 1 that the smallest deviation is with dark matter, it being remarkably close at: 0.16% variance in terms of the true figures or: 0.75% as a percentage of the 21.14% value.

Dark energy is also very close with a variance in terms of true figures at: 1.58%, which is 2.15% of the 74.88%.

However baryon matter shows the greatest variance at: .42% in terms of the true figure or 9.54% of the 4.4% value. This is an embarrassingly large discrepancy given that baryon matter is the main stuff of our physical reality, leading one to expect the most accurate concordance with it. It would be nice not to look like I’m making excuses but there may be some valid reasons why of all things baryon matter would show the greatest discrepancy.  Of course the most suspect are procedural errors, so in order of doubt:

  1. As the smaller quantity of three interrelated values, it is numerically susceptible to a greater magnification of any errors (it’s accuracy depends inversely on the accuracy of the larger quantities). Or said another way, with interrelated percentages, errors in the larger values can contaminate the smaller quantity to a greater degree.
  2. Because the proportion of baryon matter has historically been assumed to be much greater, is it possible that the people who evaluated the data felt they had a safe margin to choose a more generous evaluation for it?
  3. Is it possible that readings taken closer to agglomerations of baryon matter would show a higher reading for baryon matter? Depends on how the readings are taken, I guess.
  4. Even in EMT, black holes have an ambiguous nature in that the 3 divisions of energy would not exist yet; is it possible that black holes might corrupt readings to mimic baryon matter?
  5. Electrons being leptons normally exist in close proximity to protons ­­(and neutrons), is it possible that in this state, the pressure they exert might magnify the apparent masses of the hadrons?

There was initially a bit of a confusion in redacting the four EMT values with only three WMAP values. My original assumption was that I needed them each to have four values, a lesser one for volume, a greater one for its external mirror-image and two middle gradients for surface and mirror-surface…for a total of four. However, seeing that there were only three values from WMAP, it made sense that combining the two middle EMT values to compare with the single middle WMAP value might match and they did!

As touched on below, there should have been no reason to break the total actuality up into ten exponents or dimensions. One value for matter and that value squared for the spatial matrix should have been sufficient. In quantum theory, the question of wave-particle duality arises and it has a similarity to some of the problems in EMT. I suspect that the duality issue may be tied up in in this surface and mirror-surface quandary and have something to do with what is known as the collapse of the wave function.

In a field of endeavor where deviations from theory can be many orders of magnitude, such deviations at this early juncture hopefully will be considered acceptable.

The Geometry

A portion of this entire section has been omitted to simplify focusing on comparisons with the WMAP readings. They can be picked up later in other submissions to this site. Suffice it to say that omitted references to; (c/2) x 2 are the same as c for the purposes of understanding the WMAP comparison.

Because EMT is a geometric theory, comparisons are spoken of here as dimensions for facility. It should be understood that this was not a deliberate attempt to create dimensions within the theory. The exponential nature of the energy hierarchies is what creates the coincidence. It is hoped that by the time the complete theory has been uploaded to this site that the reader will understand why this distinction has been made.

Including baryon matter about which our sense of reality is based there is a structural hierarchy to the energy configuration of EMT in exponential terms, which correspond to the ten dimensions, found in string theory. These hierarchies and the dimensions of string theory though are distinct but parallel elements. That is to say, they both function as the same exponents but because these are two different theories, they exist for differing reasons. In one version of string theory called M-theory there exist 11 dimensions…our 3 visible dimensions + time + 7 extra hidden dimensions conjectured to be curled up at a sub-atomic level). In EMT, the 10 exponents + time that result are not dimensions per se but the way that the fundamental energy arranges itself from the macro level down to our level of reality. However to use the dimensional analogy; in EMT, the 3 dimensions of mass-volume are mirrored externally by 3 dimensions of spatial volume and both are separated by 2 (2-D) surface membranes, one stacked upon the other. That is to say 3 internal dimensions of volume + 1 (2-D) dimension of surface = 5 dimensions…then these are mirrored (reverse-ordered) as 5 external dimensions of space. Time would not appear as a dimension in the analogy because it is a marker for the combined dynamics that cause the whole effect in that all the shells of energy are expanding at different rates. It is the overall differential in rates of transformation that produce the effects of time. This is not to say that time does not exist but that it is a macro-effect of the entire system driven by the expansion. There is a line of reasoning at an even more fundamental level that another form of time is in play. As is intimated throughout the explanation of EMT, we as physical observers are critical to the way reality appears to us, making time a particularly important element in the study.

In (Table 1) it can be seen how close the measured values for baryon matter, dark matter and dark energy are to the hierarchical energy values required of expanding matrix theory. These hierarchical values are couched in geometrical language using volume, surface area and spacetime as substitutes for energy. Besides being a much cleaner way to treat the subject, it will later be shown that geometry plays a much larger role in our sense of reality than one might expect, however there is a bizarre caveat to this statement. That caveat reveals that the geometry in its deepest sense is actually temporal, that space and our perception of it is totally based on the fact that nothing within reality is instantaneous. That is not to say they cannot appear instantaneous. These are not however, the same things. For an initiation into the subject, see; Spatial Perspective and the Arrow of Time

For measurements to be made by a real observer, surface must be acknowledged as having its own energy value, much the way the surface of a sphere has to be geometrically treated as distinct from its volume. Using the “sphere” analogy, both material and spatial elements can be imagined to be a contiguous but finite number of spherical-wave-transformations within other spherical-wave-transformations (the analogy I think of are time-shells as described in the theory of general relativity). For a real observer, only the surface with an assumed volume would be seen of any particular shell located at the point representing the square root of the total transformation area (I refer to this point as c for “constant” but am dissatisfied with the designation because of potential confusion with its use). The volume, surface relationship can be deceptive because the measured quantity of weight (in a gravitational field) is the mass embodied within the volume, whereas the physical observer only sees the surface, which are exponents 4 and 5 having no discernible weight. It does however appear to show up along with exponents 6 and 7 as a macroscopic “weight”, in the form of dark matter. it was unexpected that any of the four the surface elements would have a quality one could interpret as weight (I’ve been using the word “weight” here instead of “mass” to distinguish it from the space-like energy that causes the observed acceleration). Interpreting this has been a bit confusing, whereas previously I’d assumed 4 and 5 would simply be a reflective surface 6 and 7 would be involved with the question of surface tension, with nothing resembling weight being associated with either of them. However, combining them obviously produces the quantity that appears closest to “dark matter” (see: Table 2). It would seem to be unique to baryon matter as to why the two energy shells (4 and 5) comprising surface dimensions should collapse together to form “surface”. Within the macroscopic context, any observer should be able to focus on any point in space and create the same geometry seen when looking at point-particles that converge upwards to form real objects but this does not happen. Baryon energy separates itself out to differentiate real objects to an observer.

A constant c is used here. It is actually a vector (a moving line that expands outwards from center), however if the reader starts by thinking of it simply as a stationary line, (the diameter of a sphere), he will be able use it to perceive what is happening. In the following paragraphs, reference is made to c³ for facility but it would actually be c1 through c5 when accounting for both volume and surface.

The crux is that if one imagines that all matter and space, including the observer are expanding at the same rate (without the participants being aware of it) then surfaces at the c junctures (that is the outside point of each radius) are perceived as static frames of reference. The participating observer perceives the entire volume of the sphere () as a static frame of reference and whatever other objects or spheres he may observe in his universe, are also intrinsically secondary but static frames of reference to him. That is to say, no matter how other objects might be in linear motion relative to him, once this motion and relativistic effects are accounted for, he will still perceive the other objects as having integrally static or non-expanding surfaces. All outward vectors (shells outward of surface c5) are moving away from c and appear space-like. If we now look at the inward vectors of the sphere, (as radii), they appear as an inward acting force even though in the actuality they are outward moving vectors. This is a part of the gravitational manifestation.

A Note on Acceleration and Mass

The astute reader at this point will be by now having questions and perhaps misgivings regarding inertial and gravitational mass. These are separate issues that will be treated in separate pages. Suffice it for now to be said that mass is an acquired quality unique to baryon matter…not inherent in non-baryon forms of energy. Curvatures of space are geometric issues related to time, not gravitational attraction.

Regarding c and Dimensions

A caveat should be added as regards the value of c:

The value of c as used in EMT can be a stumbling block because as a constant it is also referenced as the speed of light but only at the surface of baryon matter. Although still a constant here, it is treated more as an energy constant that acts with varying amounts of freedom (motion) depending on the ambient energies present. It is a constant equal to the speed of light but only as measured at the surface of matter. Material reality operates via surface either through touch or reflective mechanisms. When an observer sees something, wave energy must collapse into photons as they reach the lenses and retinas in his eyes and cause a chain reaction of electrical impulses to his brain. Artificial observers (instruments) all interact at some point via surface.  Surface is an energy condition that will absorb or rob excess incoming light energy and always equalize it to the ambient maximum velocity, which adds up or subtracts down to the local speed of light (c).

Excess energy in a given region for example will create a ripple in the matrix, which will move at the velocity of light carrying this excess energy away as waves that under certain conditions may collapse into discrete amounts of light quanta. Any excess moves at maximum speed but only when its ambiance is at this same threshold or greater than c.

Expanding matrix theory nudges the value of Einstein’s equation E = mc2 upwards to:

E = (mc2) 2) which in turn simplifies to: E = c10.

Coalescence of the Values

In the beginning of EMT in 1984/85, there were two fundamental values, which made little sense at reality but that had actual meanings; m and m². If we thought of a sphere with its own sheath of space that it carried around with it; m would be the volume of the sphere andwould be the sphere + the space around it.

There were problems that arose though when an observer was inserted into the picture. Physical observers can only relate to the physical world by means of surface. Without the surface, all observers and objects appear like ghosts to each other. To overcome this problem, it obliged the search for a way to recognize surface as part of the dynamic geometry. Although it took several years to find a solution, c and c2 began to take on meaning to be recognized from the formula E=mc2. Things began to make sense when m was interpreted to actually be c3, so that E=mc² would be seen as E=(c3)c2 which is the same as c5. However, c5 refers only to the mass + surface part of the transformation. In order to acknowledge the geometry of surface sandwiched between the mass and the spatial envelope, this had to be squared making it c10. The exterior spatial geometry came to be identified as the gravitational field or spacetime from relativity theory.  c6 to c10 appear in EMT as inverted mirror images of c1 to c5 when viewed from surface. At this point, things started to make more sense. It is that material dimensions (E=mc²) are distinct from the spatial dimensions ((E=mc²)² – (E=mc²)), whereas it has been assumed to now that material extension exists within the spatial manifold. This reveals however that when a real observer is sandwiched between these two elements (at surface), they must be treated as separate aspects of the same continuum E=mc²)².

Within this hierarchy, each successive outward shell has more energy than the preceding shell. This accounts for (one half of) the gravitational effects in that an object (falling) in that field has more available energy to absorb on the side away from the nearest mass than on the side, nearer the mass. The object acts like a conduit that has the effect of equalizing the energy between the opposing sides and in the process this flow of energy nudges the object downwards or towards the mass. On the other hand, the expansion itself causes an observational shift in what is assumed to be the space around objects, especially massive ones. This shift manifests itself in relativity theory as a curvature of spacetime, which accounts for that aspect of the gravitational effect. Embedded within the preceding expansion is a subtle dual-effect. The expanding matrix acts overall like a repulsing force, one that is weaker closer to mass or centers of mass.  So one can imagine the energy in the spatial mantle of a massive object like the earth trying to throw all other objects away from it.  Beyond a certain distance, this is what happens but closer in, the repulsion is weaker and the expansion of the originating mass portion overtakes it.  This is why a falling object appears to have no force acting on it…the forces are at work in the ambient matrix.  They do not originate with the falling object itself.

Reflections on the Meanings of the Outer Regions

The portion that brings it all together are the two pairs of surface dimensions. These presented a problem in the early stages of EMT because they don’t seem to exist in the actuality but only appear when an observer is present at reality. As they have a passing resemblance to: 4πr2 it would be interesting if there were some correlation to that value either because of their geometric similarities and/or the appearance of the number four in both instances (2 + 2 or 2 x 2). If anyone can offer any input, it would be appreciated.

It has occurred to me that there is something not unlike the collapse of the wave function present when the two pairs of two surface dimensions are observed. It would seem that c4 and c5 are all that should be needed for a real object to be observed but for some reason c6 and c7 are also needed to complete the picture. Perhaps surface tension or some other effect is at play.

It is known from relativity theory that for a moving object momentum-energy increases at a greater rate than the speed of the object, approaching infinity near the speed of light. The question has to be asked as to where this energy resides during the transformation process. It seems likely within the context of EMT that the regions c6 to c10 are involved in the solution. This is a problem I’ve had little time to reflect on but I am certain the solution lies within the way the field values transform.

It can be seen from the above suggested geometry that there would be a natural energy augmentation outwards from mass. This coincides with what astrophysicist Vera Rubin discovered in the 1970s…that the edges of galaxies rotate much faster than they should, leading to the assumption of and subsequent search for dark matter. If EMT is true, it reveals no need for a dark matter explanation at all but predicts such energy augmentation as a natural pattern of energy accumulation.

In Conclusion

The keynote with the above is that it must be predicated within the context of the rest of expanding matrix theory, which models the proportional expansion of 10 exponents of energy. This results in spatial perspective, dark matter and dark energy being observational anomalies that appear because of time-delay in the transmission of information (light). Dark matter and dark energy appear for the same reason that distant objects look smaller to us. It is the non-instantaneous transmission of light that is the prime element responsible for our sense of physics and reality.