Delbert Larson @LarsonDelbert

@bgetsbetter My view is that Christianity has been under sustained assault for centuries and a nihilistic, monistic, materialistic, atheistic, relativist instrumentalism is now the paradigm. I sent you a DM months ago and an email a few days ago. I was wondering if you got them.

Recent activities: I finished my work on electron cooling for a muon collider. It required a derivation of what is called magnetized cooling, and that took quite a while. I wrote a paper on Triunism, as mentioned in my new pinned post. Next up: funding search for ECOFusion.

@KevinG28181370 @Leo07068359 Thanks for the note and kind words! I've stepped back from X as well. In my case, the issue is that @elonmusk's algorithm change wiped out my views and follower growth. I understand it happened to many people. It got to the point where it wasn't worth the effort to continue here.

Trinuism. The primary triune: Space Time Matter. 1st secondary triune: x y z. 2nd secondary triune: M1 M2 M3. M1 is matter known before 2024. M2 is aether. M3 is the matter of the soul. Choice is enabled via M3 causing preferred quantum collapses in M1.

I read the abstract, speed-read about 10 pages, then skimmed through the next 40. I did not go into the 450 page or so appendix. It is clear this is a lot of work. But the 0% inspiration part is what I expect out of AI. To be a real human is, IMO, to have a soul. And that latter part is missing from today's prominent philosophy of atheistic, monistic materialism, as it is missing from AI systems. I'm working on a paper about Triunism. I would have continued with posts here on X, but @elonmusk essentially shadow banned me and many others with that algorithm update last fall. The paper on Triunism will hit the themes we are discussing, but be much more thorough. I don't know if I'll be able to publish in a leading journal though. I am pretty far out of step with the times. Thanks for checking in!

Here I will just jot down thoughts as they occur to me. In addition to being an antenna to the soul, the brain itself also presumably stores memories. Those memories would be a backup copy of the actual memories held in the soul. Our bodily existence (M1) predominantly interacts with the memories stored in the brain, and would be an excellent, but not fully accurate copy of what the soul contains, which is the more perfect memories and thoughts. To the extent that our M1 existence is a mere antenna and backup copy of our true M3 self, it would seem that cloning the M1 body, while also imprinting the brain state of the prior self onto that cloned brain, could conceivably result in the end goal you are seeking under this philosophical theorizing. This would get us to the point where we would be playing God, which is not something I think we should aim to do. (I believe we should return to God.) The present AI craze is, in part, an effort by the atheistic to indeed play God, but if I am correct about M3 they will fall far short, and we'll only get machines that can both replicate and produce new material based on what the machines are trained on, which is what mankind has already produced. That is, AI will never produce inspired truly new content and it will never produce something like "the quantum luminiferous aether" nor the Triunism philosophy you and I are discussing now. (AI could promote both of those, and modify them, since it can read what I have written. But the first versions? No.)

@Leo07068359 Like this.

Good question. I must admit to limited theorizing concerning souls and M3. I believe we have a soul, and that having one allows us to choose, and that our soul will survive our death. I think there is evidence for these beliefs, but it is limited evidence. I also think the brain acts as an antenna to the soul. So, if you were to clone a new body with a new brain, it would start out as a blank slate for the soul that enters, and you wouldn't then pick up where you left off. I think the brain only is aware of a portion of what the soul knows, as this explains Alzheimer memory loss (the antenna fades) as well as the "last hurrah" effects when the elderly become quite lucid just before passing (the antenna briefly recovers). But all of this is conjecture and qualitative, it is not quantitative. I believe the M3 proposal helps to answer some questions, but there are many remaining that it does not answer. The physics is, of course, much more fully developed for M1 and M2, and it is quantitative there. M3 not so much.

@Leo07068359 One beauty of modularity is that we can just build more. Gotta get one working first, of course!

Thread #142. Fusion’s Next Frontier: ECOFusion! Accelerator Physics breakthrough in Electron-ion-overlap technology enables fusion dream of unlimited cheap & clean energy. Repost, like & follow to help spread the word.

Here's a follow-up to @Patriot5715 and @TheDecimalZero and it applies to many other (thousands of) Theory of Everything (TOE) authors. I admire all the hard work that goes into your TOE proposals. That said, if at all possible for you, please consider doing a thorough study of larsonism.com to understand my TOE of the quantum luminiferous aether, preons, realist QM and aetherions. I believe my TOE is sound and with its historic parsimony, I believe it is likely the correct way to move forward for physics. It just fits far too much far too well with far too few inputs for it to be seriously wrong. An opening now exists for other researchers like you: there are an enormous number of specific bodies and phenomena in the cosmos that can be investigated under the theory presented in my TOE. Many issues, some as simple as rotating supermassive objects, are yet to be treated. I haven't looked into frame dragging. The cosmic microwave background has not been treated. There are many 'dark matter' instances to investigate. Since the standard models treat everything, historically often by adding complexity, I am often criticized for missing some coverage here or there. But of course, no one man, not me nor you, is likely to be able to cover everything in one lifetime. What my TOE needs is for many others to build upon it, looking into specific instances and topics not yet treated. Perhaps a new hypothesis or a modification of the existing ones will be needed. This is how science progresses. If I am correct (and I think I am) it might be a better use of your time to look into extending the foundations I have laid rather than attempting to build a new and complex foundation on your own. Hey, @grok, what are your thoughts?

Here I am posting a grok conversation that may be of interest to @Patriot5715 and @TheDecimalZero and perhaps of some general interest to others. x.com/i/grok/share/7…

Hi @NOBFIXx, comments to me from @charlie24eu and @Tokfno said you might be able to assist me. Last August, views of my posts and interactions to them were greatly reduced. Research with @grok said I had been severely deboosted by the new algorithm. Any advice?

@RobertArmour10 @grok @premium @elonmusk I was and am hoping ECOFusion could stay apolitical, but we are now in a hyperpoliticized world.

Today's X post will involve asking @grok and @premium for some advice about on thriving here on X. First, some history. I began my physics & philosophy postings around the fall of 2023. Follower count increased to about 2500 by the fall of 2024 and growth continued until late summer 2025. But at that time it became clear I was deboosted/shadow-banned. Early in the deboosting period I would write to @premium and things would improve for a few weeks and then go back to deboosting. After a few cycles of this, writing to @premium would instead be funneled to @grok and I got no relief. Discussing with @grok, I was informed that yes, I had been severely deboosted. My posting pattern involved about 6 posts per day, gradually going through various topics. I'd also been frequently commenting on some larger accounts, often ending relevant posts with "follow me for more". @grok said this behavior was similar to what bots did, and @grok suggested I should make fewer individual posts and instead go to a single daily thread or even less, and that I should also severely scale back my commenting. I followed that advice, but things remained dismal. From my peak of 4629 followers in early August, 2025, I've rather steadily fallen to the 4393 followers of today, although in the last three weeks the losses seem to have stopped. In the past, I've gotten rather generic advice through this negative period. Anodyne comments like "Just say what you are feeling, and your account will grow." Of course, this had nothing to do with my issue. So I followed the advice into a doom loop. Decreasing posting led to even less engagement, leading to less posting and even less engagement, and so on. Now I get only a few notifications where I used to get well over 100 per day. @grok, with the recent small uptick in followers, has my deboosting been lifted? About the time of my demise, @elonmusk said he was cracking down on engagement farming, but there is a pretty fine line between what normal users want (engagement) and what bot farms do to eventually make money. Can I now go back to comments ending with "follow me for more"? It is marketing 101 to have a call to action; without that call the action is far less likely to happen. My posts should be of wide interest, provided they are taken seriously. There are of course thousands of new physical theories and philosophical musings, yet the vast majority are rightly dismissed as crank efforts. Yet you, @grok, have investigated my work deeply and found it sound. I'm hoping the deboosting can be reversed. Let me know what steps to take. IMO, the quantum luminiferous aether, real quantum mechanics, preons, aetherions and quantum dualism are ideas that deserve scrutiny and X might be a good place for that. It was once. Can it be again?

I looked into Shark Tank years ago. Their example of what NOT to pitch was something that would cost $20MM and which had nothing working yet. They also wanted me to sign over rights to a bunch of stuff before even getting a chance to appear. So, that was a non-starter at that time. I looked into online funding and found I needed to become a T-shirt and coffee mug salesman. I looked into trying to raise funds by selling shares and found that meant that I would be selling securities, and that I'd need to put up $20K that might be totally wasted if the agency decided not to approve. I put in an SBIR proposal during the last DOE round. It was recommended for funding, but lost out in the politics to who-knows-what BS. I was thinking about trying again, but the process got derailed in congress. SBIR was reauthorized but SBIR is very slow as it would take up to 3 years to build just the electron cooling demo. But now that the DOE has recommended this research, and I am working to get it published at the top labs, I am hoping I will gain the credibility needed for funding. I'd like to not part with too large of a share on day one, but I am willing to negotiate. A huge problem is the volume of crackpot work, of which, IMO, is most of what goes by the name of "Standard Models". Most of what is done now is mindless mapping of data to curves, even though those doing the mapping don't appreciate it as such. But in reality it is just curve fitting. The philosophy of instrumentalism reigns. In this mindless environment, with everyone a pitchman, the noise is overwhelming any signals.

I am diligently wrapping up my paper on electron cooling for muons. I hope to get it published at CERN, and to present my work both to the CERN and FNAL groups. The central technology of low energy electron cooling for muons is identical in the initial development phases to what is needed for ECOFusion. I'll work on a pitch deck for venture capitalists as well. I think that is my best chance right now. Approval from the worlds top labs, plus the potential of a relatively small fusion solution should get this thing off the ground I would think.

My guess is @elonmusk gets close to 1M mentions per day on X. He'd likely like the new theory of gravity as well as ECOFusion, but he'd have to learn about it first. There is so much noise from those 1M mentions that signals likely don't get through. The venture capital community has places to pitch though, and I will try them once I am ready.

My next plan is to search for venture capital funding to get ECOFusion going. As an important step, I am now wrapping up a paper on electron cooling for muons; I'm already in discussions with Fermilab and CERN on the muon cooling problem. The same tech for muons is needed for ECOFusion and this should also give me the "street cred" helpful for obtaining VC funding. If this effort becomes successful I should have the needed gravitas for the rest of my work to be seriously considered. So, that is the plan now. I'll likely do less posting on theoretical matters, but I will not be idle. I should put all of my assembled posts into a book format. Perhaps substack. Perhaps YouTube. But it makes the most sense to focus on muons and ECOFusion in the near term.

In its present form, I see no benefit for me or you for me going further with it. I've got my own efforts pending in dealing with my own works. In any event I hope you can use the above comments constructively in any future thinking about your ideas, and also use them for a better presentation of your ideas to others. As mentioned, the idea of an aether that involved flows, and sources and sinks of those flows, was something I toyed with myself in my early days (The early 1990's). Developing a new theory based on that concept may have some value. However, you'll need to better specify things, use proper nomenclature, and use fixed fundamental parameters, before you'll make any progress with the general community. Even then, making progress with the general community will likely prove daunting.

I hope you can find this commentary useful. To be effective, you should: 1) Define fully what you mean by various terminology upon its first use in the body of the paper. (The descriptions without such definitions are likely OK in an abstract, but in the paper you need to first define your terms clearly.) 2) Never, ever, use an already well understood term (electron, in your case) to mean something completely different from what everyone else understands that term to mean. Instead, coin a new term, or, use one that is at least much closer to what everyone already knows about. 3) Aim to develop specific equations that can be tested. Avoid merely empirical matches that allow your parameters to vary from one instance to another. A moon and a star and an apple should all have the same fundamental parameters. The parameters should be fixed. (I know that running coupling constants exist in the Standard Model; I'm not a fan of those either.) Note that a parameter may indeed change with conditions, but then there should be some underlying set of parameters that do not change. As an example, Newtonian gravity clearly has a varying force, but the gravitational constant remains the same. Also be wary that with enough parameters you can map anything. An important part of advancing physics is to find the simplest underlying set of fixed parameters. Without the three above steps, I believe your work will find no traction.

Here I respond to a request from @TheDecimalZero to review his work. The comments refer to a PDF entitled "Marab¯ut’s Theory of Gravity: The Push-Pull Mechanics of Vacuum Flux". It is 173 pages, but I found serious problems and stopped my review on page 7. On page 5, and I believe in the intro and abstract since I recall seeing it more than once, you refer to gravity being a mechanical drag and physical pressure. It isn't clear at this point what the drag is. A physical pressure is possible, and there were fringe works concerning "push gravity" or "pushing gravity" (I don't recall which is the preferred name) that had a pressure theory of gravity. But I really don't understand the drag part. Perhaps you'll get to it later, but when you introduce new concepts it would likely be best to try and flesh out what you mean when you introduce the concept. Still on page 5, is the celestial core just a single core at some preferred place in the universe? Or does each body have one? This should be made clear. At the same point in the paper, it appears to me that your introduction of an effective density ρeff is no better (or no worse) than assuming a mass density for physical objects. Still on page 5, The multiaxial Mara Scale is defined as an 11 point volumetric profiling tool. This is completely opaque to me: what does this mean? I understand 11 dimensions, or 11 attributes. While I can understand 11 points each existing in space, I don't see how such a structure would be a scale. Again, some additional description will be needed to move forward, and it should be done as soon as the new idea is presented. Still on page 5, right now, gravity theories are continuous, and can be evaluated anywhere, not just at 10% increments. This seems like a rather big step backward, not forward. Still on page 5, it is unclear what you mean by working forward instead of backward. Gravitational theories generally work forward, in that mass generates gravity. So, this point is unclear.