Preface part 1
Well-known astrophysicists like Stephen Hawking (R.I.P.) profess to Flat Earth Society by being a member there. It gives a coolness effect among the scholars to confess to them. In the same manner, there is a coolness factor to admit that you do not know what da hell you are doing as a quantum physicist. However, in the field of the Relativity theory, to admit that one does not understand the theory of relativity is to commit academic suicide. Yet many professionals do not understand the theory of relativity. This may be because you may need to supplement or perhaps even revise the theory, as Einstein once did with Isaac Newton’s theory whose equation on bodies gravity is F=GMm/r². Does that mean that Einstein took himself too seriously, or does it mean that I take myself too seriously? Intelligent question Roger! In any case, I incorporate Einstein’s rather loose assumptions in his book about energy, time and shape of objects traveling near the speed of light, to a more uniform and complete theory of relativity. Einstein himself hardly balled with both energy, time and shape simultaneously in a structured or mathematical way. God was much less fun than Einstein and his crazy relativistic ideas concerning time dilation. I estimate the time it takes for you to read part one of this book and understand it, to 90+90 minutes or three manhours. I dare say that I can lead you through a reasoning, based on indisputable simple calculations, to a vision of the Universe that you will find difficult to dispute even if you disagree. I will force you to recognize the factual bits, but I may not be able to convince you about my inferred conclusions about what constitutes the Universe or the shape and form of the Universe. But I thank you for your time!
These dark matter, dark energy theories, cooked up by non the wiser physicists in order to save science face, have caused harm to science. First of all, it is not one theory, it’s two theories bundled together like two cats with a string. It is designed to be applied from different angles in order to ad hoc explain the Universe, but it only confuse it ever more. It is as unappealing as the Ether theory and needs to be sent to the scrapyard along with the latter theory which was scrapped a hundred years ago in favor of Albert Einstein’s theory of Relativity.
I have used classical theories to explain away Dark matter and in a sense Dark energy (actually, I may have described what Dark energy really is) in a beautiful way that does not do away with Einstein’s theory of Relativity but rather complements it. The thing is that when Einstein wrote his general theory of Relativity, the world had no idea that the Universe was expanding and at an ever higher speed. This I think is key to why Einstein couldn’t conclude what I have concluded in my book. You can read it yourself or you can let one of your best critically thinking students read it for a review. Or you can throw it away and watch the world waste billions and billions of dollars on bigger and better particle accelerators to detect the WIMP particle that probably does not exist, and watch the world build telescopes for zooming in on small satellite galaxies around the Milky Way that, although anticipated, also probably do not exist.
I believe that I have a solution, to several of the problems in today’s physics, that is elegant and compliant and is easy to understand. My ideas are conforming with science as we know it and are not insanely concocted or goes contrary to common sense or the laws of physics. My ideas describe reality surprisingly easy. Despite its simplicity the conclusions have not been made by anybody else. Geometry suggest that something is seriously wrong with the existing hypothesies of the shape and constitution of the Universe. But I have a stunning although valid solution. I promise you that you can follow the logic in the first part of my book which describes the relevant theory for you. It is well formulated logic. Don’t forget to study the many images with text carefully.
There are mainly four controversial contended theses in my book. One is that I contend that mass for an object with momentum is not absolute, especially at extremely high speeds. It means that, observed from the object with momentum itself, its own mass increase with acceleration, especially at extreme speeds (except for wave particles). Don’t hang up on me now, because it is easily explained with axiomatic conformed physics as described in the images in my book. Two is that there is also absolute motion for mass within a speed scale ranging from 0 up to 300,000 km/s, which the Special Relativity theory denies. This is also very easily explained to the point that it is proved in the images. Three is that it is the speed as such, in which an object travels, that determines how slowly or rapidly it ages in relation to other objects. It is not because objects move away from each other or move towards each other that makes them age differently, but all objects are always in relation. This is also easily explained in the images. Four is that an emitting object cannot travel at the speed of light, and therefore there is no time dilation for emitted light, there are only frequency variations. The last one is not exactly news. These four by me contended theses all go against Einstein’s original theory. Fortunately all of this doesn’t mean that we have to alter Einsteins most famous formula E=mc2 to a point where it is rendered a dogm. But it has to be complemented. So I did that. I will in this book answer evident issues for you.
I understand why Albert Einstein never was awarded the Nobel Prize for his Theory of Relativity. I have laid down my case in the book for the reader to take part of. It could happen to me too in a somewhat distant future that someone is able to describe parts of my book as erroneous. But Albert’s theses describes the world but it also describes the world beyond what he could know, and there are some critical contentions in Einstein’s book ”The Special and the General Theory of Relativity” that are not empirically decided and/or truly logically derived. But it was difficult for the Nobel Committee to put its finger on it, so the intellectual giant Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was dismissed without any real written justification, which one might think should be appropriate in the situation that the Nobel Committee found themselves in. But in my book I mainly concentrate on my heuristic theories. I try in my book not to describe the world beyond what I can know. I thus had to kill some of my darlings, like speculating about the shape and characteristics of the Universe based on existing geometry. Or so I thought. But some of my deductions have further led me to forced conclusions about the shape of the Universe and what constitutes the Universe. They also induce clues about the Pre-universe. Everything can be explained with existing geometry. Yet, to my astonishment, the forced conclusions I made based on geometry as we know it, seem to imply that the Universe we know is a creation by a God’s hand. I did not have the creationist in my mind when making my conclusions, I assure you! I know another person who was a believer, he also had revolutionary ideas about the Universe that didn’t fit in the contemporary scholars’ existing frame. His name was Albert Einstein.
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.