PART 7 — OBSERVATIONAL CONSEQUENCES & TESTABLE PREDICTIONS

MET is not intended as pure metaphysics.
A viable theory must produce observable signatures—directly or indirectly—and MET does.

This section outlines three classes of predictions:

Type A: testable now with modern physics

Type B: testable in neuroscience and cognitive science

Type C: cosmological and extraterrestrial implications

These predictions make MET “dangerous” in the scientific sense:
it cannot be dismissed outright, yet it cannot be disproven trivially.

---

7.1. Type A Predictions — Testable With Modern Physics

(1) Extra-model fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)

MET predicts that at the boundary between the Void and the Membrane, extremely weak non-electromagnetic fluctuations should imprint subtle statistical anomalies onto the CMB.

Expected signatures:

unexplained cold spots

low-level dipole asymmetry

deviations from ΛCDM predictions

noise that is not photon-based nor neutrino-based

If MET is correct:

> These anomalies are not “instrument noise” but Void-layer glitches leaking into the physical universe via Membrane deformation.

---

(2) Persistent quantum noise even in near-perfect vacuum

If the Central Domain continuously reflects cross-layer vibrations, then even an ideal vacuum should retain a measurable, non-random “micro-signature.”

Detectable by instruments like:

LIGO

superconducting quantum sensors

trapped-ion interferometers

Expected observation:

non-decaying background jitter

repeating oscillatory micro-patterns with no physical source

These would suggest:

> The “vacuum” is not empty, but carries residual reflections from other layers.

---

(3) Cognitive micro-delays during anomalous perception

If the Central Domain occasionally feeds raw, unfiltered vibrations:

Humans should experience:

momentary precognition (~0.1 sec), matching Libet-style results

brief intuitive “jumps’’ not traceable to prior sensory input

flashes of information that do not match stored memory

MET interprets these as:

> Low-level reflections reaching the Membrane faster than sensory-based decoding can catch up.

---

7.2. Type B Predictions — Biological & Cognitive Level

(4) Neural coherence in individuals with a strong “Self-Structure”

MET predicts:

> A strong ego = a stable distinction-pattern = reduced cross-layer noise.

This can be measured through:

EEG coherence

fMRI stability under stress

HRV (heart-rate variability)

Expected correlation:

lower chaotic entropy in neural dynamics

more consistent decision signatures

faster conflict resolution in the prefrontal cortex

---

(5) Aha!-moments = Theta–Gamma synchronization bursts

When a sudden insight appears, MET claims the brain has momentarily “locked onto’’ a reflected vibration.

Expected neuro-signature (already observed in cognitive science):

gamma spike: rapid integrative binding

theta modulation: orientation and access

noise collapse: a brief drop in random fluctuation

MET provides the source explanation:

> Insight occurs when a new cross-layer vibration is successfully interpreted by the Membrane–brain system.

---

7.3. Type C Predictions — Cosmology & Extraterrestrial Intelligence

(6) Civilizations based in “cold layers’’ emit no EM signals

MET predicts:

> Civilizations existing at ~3 K, adapted to low-energy vibration regimes, will not use electromagnetic communication.

Thus:

SETI-style radio searches will fail

silence ≠ absence

EM blindness is expected, not surprising

This resolves the Fermi paradox from a MET perspective:

> We are listening on the wrong vibrational channel.

---

(7) Galaxies exhibit slight asymmetries due to “Abyssal Flow”

Besides gravity, dark matter, and dark energy, galactic structure should be affected by Void/Abyss pressure gradients.

Observable consequences:

arms of spiral galaxies slightly mismatched

stellar orbital jitter not explained by baryonic matter

non-uniform twists across large-scale structure

If MET is correct:

> These anomalies are not measurement errors but signatures of Void-flow interacting with the Membrane.

---

7.4. Why These Predictions Make MET Scientifically Potent

These predictions share five properties that make MET unusually resilient:

1. None contradict known physics.

2. None can be dismissed immediately.

3. All allow practical tests with existing or near-future instruments.

4. They sound reasonable even to non-specialists.

5. They open bold but coherent implications for consciousness, cosmology, and alien life.

MET’s predictive structure makes it a “border theory”:
not fully within mainstream physics, but too consistent to be ignored.