One consequence with satellite GPS is that the clocks on board satellites runs faster, and it is assumed that this has to do with the satellite being farther away from the gravitational source Earth. But the GPS-satellite is free falling in an orbit around Earth, it is not stationary (usually at least) located above Earth. And how does it fit in with the idea that faster objects age more slowly in relation to the slower moving surroundings. If you place an atomic clock onboard an aircraft instead of a satellite and send it away, the clock indeed shows that time slows down on board the airplane, when you check the clock and compare it with your pre-synchronized landbased atomic clock after the airplane has landed. I have a better explanation for why time runs faster on board satellites while time runs slower on board an airplane in the air. The inconsistency is otherwise a constant source of confusion even for physicists. I have a complete theory that dispels all of the confusion. Observe that it is not a hypothesis, I can support it with Euclidean geometry and simple mathematics. Also observe that I do not dispute that you age faster outside of Earth’s or any large object’s gravitational field. I am merely saying that you or a satellite in orbit is moving so fast that it should mean that the weaker gravitational force which makes you age faster, should be leveled out in terms of experienced time, to be compliant with the existent ”theory” of relativity. I can explain why this isn’t the case.
In this thesis I present a valid explanation for both Dark energy and Dark matter, and they are not the same force even though they both are a (separate) force. Again, the explanation is founded on a complete theory as opposed to Einstein’s ”theory” of Relativity, thus not a hypothesis. Both Dark energy and Dark matter can be explained within one and the same theory, different explanations but they both fit neatly into this one theory based on Euclidean geometry and some math.
- Is compliant with fact
- Explains connections between facts (incl. anomalies)
- Is contradiction-free
- Is bold (according to Popper)
- Is testable (verifiable or falsifiable)
- Is not ad hoc
- Is simple (”beautiful”)
Something that can be conveyed from one person’s mind to another person’s consciousness is information, if the person receiving the information perceives it as the transmitter intended. That the receiver syncs the information that the transmitter has in the head is a confirmation that the information is logic. But for this to be possible, it requires that the receiver is at least as intelligent as the transmitter alt. that the transmitted information is simple enough for the receiver to perceive the information as the transmitter had intended for the receiver to perceive it. A proviso must be included. Emotions can also be conveyed between a transmitter and one or more receivers. But emotions are more likely to have a socially logical function rather than that emotions are purely irrational. E.g. in mating and child caring or in the forming of communities and nations. It’s just that you can’t build houses with emotional expressions. Although you may want to build a house with emotional expressions. From this follows that emotions can be logical from an evolutionary perspective. Everything indicates that emotions and logical thinking are mixed to varying degrees in solving problems, music production, and in grief, revenge, happiness, envy, curiosity, etc.
Teaser for my total rebuttal of Kurt Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem.
So we have two statements:
- A means that A is unprovable
- False formulas are unprovable
One can easily replace (1) with either “False A is unprovable” or “True A is unprovable”.
(- +) = (-) (imaginary)
(+ +) = (+) (true)
(- -) = (+) (true)
(+ -) = (-) (imaginary)
The following is an explanation of what I am claiming here:
- We would get (- +) = (-) (imaginary) if A could be false and provable, which it cannot. False propositions cannot be proved true.
- We get the formula (+ +) = (+) (true) if it is true and provable, which certainly wouldn’t conflict with (4).
- We get (- -) = (+) (true) if it is false and unprovable.
- Thus we get the formula (+ -) = (-) (imaginary) for the true and unprovable.