Q: What is gravity?
A: The answer cannot be found in today's theories.
Newton only claimed that gravity was an attracting force between all objects because that's the way things appear --objects fall to the Earth or approach each other when floating in outer space. So Newton understandably claimed that it must be some type of attracting force emanating from objects, but he gave no scientific explanation for this force. Why does it attract and not repel? How does it cause falling objects and orbiting planets without drawing on any known power source?
Einstein was so dissatisfied with our lack of understanding about gravity even two centuries after Newton that he invented an entirely new theory of gravity, known as General Relativity. Yet this theory doesn’t solve these problems either, adding that since everything in 3-dimensional space takes time to occur we must include our time measurement as a literal 4th physical dimension of our universe’s structure -- hence "4-D space-time", which somehow warps 4-dimensionally in the presence of matter for still-unexplained reasons, presumably explaining gravity.
In addition to the increase in unanswered questions with General Relativity, it has been found to completely fail even to explain the motion of stars in galaxies. This has led to the further invention of exotic "Dark Matter", said to invisibly fill galaxies, rather than questioning Einstein’s theory and the often-repeated claim that it has been tested to extreme accuracy. Add to this the fact that there are still a half-dozen theories of gravity officially under consideration at the moment, all with different physical description of gravity, and it is no wonder many are still asking: "What is gravity?"
From "Nailing Down Gravity", Discover Magazine, Oct 2003:
For Michael Martin Nieto, a theoretical physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the mystery involves much more than a few hunks of spacefaring hardware; it reveals that there might be something wrong with our understanding of gravity, the most pervasive force in the universe. "We don't know anything," he says.
"Everything about gravity is mysterious"
==> To learn what gravity truly is, see Chapter 2
where a new and totally overlooked atomic
principle is revealed!
Q: But don't we know all about the gravity of Black Holes and how even light can't escape?
A: No. This often-repeated error is based on a clear oversight. Black Holes are said to form when a star expends its nuclear energy and physically collapses. But starlight only shines from intact, functioning stars, of course. There is no more reason to expect light to shine from Black Holes than from a burnt-out, smashed light bulb. This is a commonly repeated error in plain view that is intended to showcase and dramatize our scientists' deep understanding of Black Holes and gravity, but which actually exposes how little is truly understood about either.
Q: How can scientists be so mystified by gravity yet also claim to explain it?
A: This is a basic conflict in our science. It is the function of our educational institutions to teach the beliefs of the day and to stand by them no matter what. This often means justifying or defending theories that are actually indefensible upon any serious close inspection. Take a good look at these examples of fatally flawed explanations related to gravity in plain view, which are commonly taught as correct in physics classes around the world today:
1) Gravitational Perpetual Motion:
As we all know, perpetual motion machines are impossible, and claims of such devices are a clear sign of bad science. No device (or natural phenomenon) can expend energy without draining a power source, and certainly cannot operate with no power source at all. Yet our science states that an object dropped into a tunnel cut through the Earth would be accelerated to the center by gravity, then decelerated as it approached the other end, only to be accelerated down again, over and over – endlessly. Even our most elementary physics states that it takes energy expenditure from a known power source to accelerate and decelerate objects, yet there is no power source in site here, let alone a draining one. Despite detailed atomic theories and even having split the atom, science has never identified a gravitational power source. This describes an actively operating mechanism that never ends and never drains a power source – an impossible perpetual motion scenario, according to today’s physics.
2) The Work formula:
When all else fails, we are told not to worry about the gravitational power source because gravity never does any work throughout the universe. According to today’s science, all of the gravity-driven dynamics in our universe occur without any work being done, therefore there is no reason to expect energy expenditure from any power source – no power is required for any of it. We are told that objects are pinned forcefully and continually to the planet by gravity, but since they just sit there, even though forcefully pinned down, no energy source is required to explain this. How can such a claim be justified? Simple – ignore the physical gravitational energy expenditure and recast it as a formal Work scenario.
Why does this suddenly seem to solve such a deep physical problem?
Because the formal definition of Work in physics is: (force applied) x (distance moved). Note: this is not the form of work that we all relate to, where expending energy is doing work. Instead, Work, by definition, ignores all energy expended unless it happens to move something. While this formal Work definition does calculate the energy expended to move objects it will also obviously give a zero result whenever an applied force cannot move an object, such as when we push on a wall or when gravity pulls on an object that is already on the ground. Of course this does not mean no energy was expended, but simply that the Work equation was only designed to deal with a very limited energy scenario where the applied force happens to move something. It is an extremely grievous elementary abuse of physics to borrow the formal Work formula and misapply it to a scenario where no motion exists just to claim that the "zero work" result means no energy source is required to forcefully pin objects to the ground. Part of the reason this explanation has been allowed to slide for so long is because this very limited Work definition has the same name as the actual concept of energy-driven work that we are familiar with. So when an authority figure presents a formal "Work" equation from a physics textbook and does a calculation that gives a "zero work" result, apparently resolving enormous questions about gravity in our science, it is difficult to resist the "no work, no energy" assurance from a teacher, which everyone else seems ok with, never to seriously question it again. And so it goes, generation after generation, leading to the current mess we have over common gravity in our science today.
Even the forceful constraining of the moon in its orbit is said to require no energy, since the Work equation is also defined to give zero when an object moves perpendicular to the applied force. So the fact that gravity pulls downward on the passing moon is said to free science from acknowledging the enormous energy that must be required to constrain the moon in orbit. Not only is this just as grievous and elementary an error as shown above for all the same reasons, but it further mistakes the motion of the passing moon as pertinent to the calculation. In actuality, the moon already had a pre-existing coasting motion past the planet that has nothing to do with gravity’s pull. It is the continual motion of the moon downward due to the downward pull of gravity that keeps its coasting constrained to circle the planet rather than proceeding off into deep space. Once the thinly veiled "zero work" excuses are removed, it is clear to see that none of today’s gravity theories can answer even the simplest physical questions about gravity, which is why the Work equation diversion technique is used over and over in classrooms around the world when such questions arise, since the only alternative is to admit "I don’t know".
==> All of these issues are resolved in Chapter 2
Q: How can a fridge magnet cling against gravity
endlessly without draining a power source?
A: It can't ... fridge magnets are impossible according to
today's science. It certainly takes tremendous energy to
cling to the side of a cliff, supporting our own weight against
gravity, and before long we would tire and fall. Yet a fridge
magnet clings endlessly to the fridge by magnetic energy.
And, as both our science and our experience tell us, such
an expenditure of energy requires that a power source be
drawn upon to support such effort. Yet a permanent magnet
not only maintains its strength indefinitely (no theory or text-
book shows the power drain characteristics of a permanent
magnet as it clings against the pull of gravity), but there isn’t
even a power source in sight! Endless magnetic energy
apparently emanates from permanent magnets without
any explanation in our science. The only explanation that any
physicist will give for this mystery is that there is no mystery
since the magnet isn't moving, which gives a zero result if
you plug this into the Work equation – a severely flawedequation – a severely flawed
diversionary tactic that was exposed above. No physicist will
acknowledge the error of applying the Work equation to deny
the ongoing magnetic energy expenditure, nor agree that a
power source is required to cling energetically against gravity.
This excerpt from an article on magnetism in Discover
Magazine, Dec. 2002, further makes this point:
Moreover, asking that question [why some non-metallic
==> These mysteries and law violations are
objects are magnetic] inevitably lets you in on a surprising
secret: Physicists are also a little fuzzy about those bits of
iron alloy attached to your refrigerator. "Only a few people
understand -- or think they understand -- how a permanent
magnet works," says Makarova [a Russian physicist
working at Umea University in Sweden]. "The magnet of
everyday life is not a simple thing. It's a quantum-
mechanics thing ... I'm just working as an engineer, trying
to find out where the magnetism comes from."
resolved in Chapter 4, where a totally
overlooked and misunderstood subatomic
principle is revealed!
Q: How can freezing water expand, even bursting
metal pipes, with no energy input to explain it?
A: According to today's science, this is impossible. Every
==> This mystery is solved in Chapter 4 via the
output of energy requires a balancing energy input in order
to remain within our laws of physics. A balloon left in the sun
will expand and burst, in the process doing work against the
surrounding atmosphere and its elastic skin, which is balanced
by the energy input from the sun, so it is no mystery. However,
freezing water has no energy input -- in fact, just the opposite.
Energy continually drains from the water as it cools toward
freezing. So, how does the water suddenly expand with such
force from within that it easily bursts metal pipes? No solid
answers to this mystery can be found from today's scientists --
only confused hand-waving diversionary responses that still
do not answer this clear energy balance violation.
new atomic and subatomic principles.
Q: How do heavy objects rest on a table without
its molecules giving way, collapsing the table?
A: Science has no viable explanation for this today. This
mystery is similar to the mystery of the fridge magnet. Atomic
bonds are said to result from electromagnetic energy attracting
and holding atoms together. Yet, there is no denying that
tremendous ongoing energy expenditure is required to hold the
structure of a table together under the weight of a heavy
object. Where does this energy come from? How quickly does
this subatomic power source drain as it expends all this
energy? Today's science has no explanation for this everyday
occurrence, so such questions are never discussed.
==> This mystery and clear violation of the laws
of physics is explained in Chapter 4.
Q: Light slows as it passes through water or
glass, causing it to bend, but how can it
return to light-speed on its own once it exits?
A: This is impossible in today's science. No object in nature
can speed up of its own accord after being slowed. A bullet
doesn't spontaneously speed up after it is slowed by passing
through a wooden block, so how does a photon of light
mysteriously return to its original speed once it exits a glass
block? Also, continuously shining a light beam through a glass
block will heat it, creating the further mystery that the beam
actually loses energy as it passes through the glass, yet still
manages to accelerate to its original speed upon exit. Today's
science cannot explain this mysterious everyday occurrence.
Here is another related mystery: Bounce a light-beam between
two parallel mirrors at a slight angle so that the beam bounces
along the mirrors in a zig-zag pattern. How many bounces
will it take before the light beam loses energy and slows down
appreciably? 1000 bounces? 10,000? Of course, we know that
the light beam will never slow down no matter how many times
it bounces back and forth, despite the well-established fact that
light imparts a small momentum punch when it bounces off
objects (the principle behind solar sails). So, how does a single
beam of light impart countless momentum punches as it zig-
zags between the mirrors, yet still manage to emerge afterward
at the same unchanging speed of light? According to today's
science this is an impossible energy-for-free event.
==> These mysteries are solved in Chapter 5
via the new subatomic principle.
Q: Why is Einstein's Special Relativity Theory so
bizarre? Is our universe really that strange?
A: Einstein's Special Relativity Theory is all a mistake. Not
only can clear errors be found in all supporting experiments and
thought experiments, but even Einstein's own mathematical
support for his theory has clear fatal errors. One of the flaws is
so striking that two key lines were omitted from Einstein's
published Special Relativity derivation found in his own book,
Relativity: The Special and General Theory, published in 1961.
A closer look at this derivation shows a large leap of logic that
cannot be properly followed unless several missing lines are
filled in. There is only one mathematically viable way to fill in
these missing lines, which is shown below in simplified form:
Line 1: x = a + b -- note: speed-of-light term, c, has
dropped out entirely by this point
Line 2: x = a + b * (c2/ c2) -- the undefined symbol, c, is
Now, let the symbol y stand for the expression (b * c2)
Line 3: x = a + y / c2 -- the symbol, c, is kept from cancelling
by hiding it within y in the numerator
The two missing lines, now added above as lines 1 &2, show
that the speed-of-light term drops out of the derivation entirely
and should never have appeared in the final equations. The
above improper mathematical operations are the only way to
add it back in, yet do not actually add the speed of light back
at all, but only the meaningless letter C from the alphabet. Any
letter from A to Z could have been chosen, showing how
meaningless and arbitrary it was to choose the letter C, which
was used to represent the speed of light earlier in the derivation
before it dropped out completely. See if you can spot this
yourself around lines 6 and 7 in Einstein’s own derivation.
Further, this is not the only fatal flaw in Einstein's derivation, but
one of many. Variables are arbitrarily assigned and reassigned
different values, then expressions from earlier in the derivation,
which were only valid prior to these arbitrary value changes, are
re-used as if they were still valid. In actuality, there is no viable
mathematical support for Einstein's Special Relativity Theory
at all. Don’t believe it? Again, look for yourself at the link above.
Einstein's reputation has grown to such heights and his
theories have become so deeply ingrained in our science today
that few scientists, if any, are willing to seriously investigate
this matter and see the errors that are in plain view.
==> The numerous flaws in Einstein's Derivation
are detailed in Chapter 5.
Q: If our universe isn't the bizarre place Einstein
A: Examine the support for yourself and you will see it
claimed it is, why is there apparently so much
vanish. Einstein was a creative thinker who made great
contributions to our science, but it is very dangerous to allow
his reputation to blind us to the clear logical flaws and highly
questionable claims in the apparent support for his theories.
Below is a famous thought experiment frequently used to
support Einstein’s Special Relativity theory, yet a little critical
analysis shows that it not only fails to support this theory, but
it actually disproves many of the core claims of both Special Special
Relativity and General Relativity theories. Don’t believe it?
Who could blame you, given the supposed mountain of
support for Einstein and his theories, so read on and judge
The Twin Paradox Thought Experiment
This famous thought experiment claims than an astronaut who
speeds off close to light speed would return to find his twin far
older than him, due to the mysteries of ‘time dilation’ in Special
Relativity theory, where time slows down the faster you go. Yet
this same theory shows this claim is impossible. Since all speed
is relative in Special Relativity, it is just as valid to consider the
twin on Earth to be speeding along while the astronaut sits in
space, making the astronaut the elder twin in the end. Two
completely different unresolvable outcomes occur simply based
on how we think about the situation, which is clearly impossible.
Many physicists will either volunteer this famous thought
experiment to demonstrate Special Relativity or will sit quietly
while others do so, but point out the obvious fatal flaw above
and they will immediately retract it, denying the flaw by pointing
out that the astronaut was the only one physically accelerating,
so there is only one way to look at the situation. Then they will
claim that this accelerated scenario actually puts it in the realm
of General Relativity, which verifies this time dilation claim
beautifully. At this point everyone usually agrees that it was
silly to question Einstein anyway, and the discussion ends.
But wait! Have you spotted the numerous problems already?
Problem #1: This thought experiment famously appears in
nearly all introductions to Special Relativity ever presented,
as evidence for the bizarre truths of this theory, yet it is always
retracted when challenged (and usually only when challenged).
Problem #2: The basis for the retraction is that a clear logical
flaw was demonstrated in the very concept of ‘time dilation’ in
Special Relativity – a core feature of the theory and an effect
often claimed to have been experimentally verified in support of
this theory. It is frequently claimed that satellite GPS systems
rely on corrections for ‘time dilation’ according to Special
Relativity, or that atomic clocks flown on airplanes have verified
’time dilation’ according to Special Relativity. So the retraction
of this famous Special Relativity thought experiment in favor of
General Relativity, is no small detail, wiping out enormous
theoretical and experimental pillars of support for Special
Relativity, in one fell swoop. Yet this fact just sails right past as
the focus is nonchalantly switched to General Relativity.
Problem #3: As the discussion usually ends once the expert
claims that General Relativity solves the problem, there is often
no burden of proof on the expert to back up even this claim. It is
usually sufficient to reference this even less understood theory
by our greatest known scientist in order to save face even if the
’expert’ actually knows little or nothing about General Relativity.
Problem #4: General Relativity doesn’t solve this problem
either! A core concept of General Relativity is that it is
fundamentally impossible to distinguish the effect of gravity on
Earth from that of accelerating through space at the rate of 1g.
This is known as the Principle of Equivalence. So, even
according to General Relativity, the astronaut could accelerate
to even 99% of light speed and travel for as long as he wished,
and upon return to Earth there would be no mysterious ‘time
dilation’ effects whatsoever; his twin would be the same age as
him. That is according to both Special Relativity and General
Relativity – no ‘relativistic time dilation’, no ‘relativistic mass
increase’, and no ‘relativistic length contraction’. Further, as
stated earlier above, General Relativity fails so completely to
explain the motion of stars in galaxies that concepts as wild as
mysterious ‘Dark Matter’ filling the universe must be invented to
try to retain the theory. So, what exactly is going on with all the
claims about Einstein’s Relativity Theories by our scientists?
==> This apparent paradox and "proof" of Special
Relativity is clearly debunked in Chapter 5.
Q: Are there really such elementary problems
even with General Relativity?
A: Yes, those mentioned above and more. Consider the
central concept of General Relativity itself -- 'warped
space-time'. We have all seen the graphic of a rubber sheet
("space-time") deformed by a heavy sphere (the sun), with
the planets "following the warp". There are, of course, many
serious problems with this notion (neither actual empty space
nor proposed "space-time" are physically even remotely like
a 2-D rubber sheet, gravity must mysteriously pre-exist to
pull the sphere down to cause the warping that is said to
cause gravity, what does it even mean to pull the sphere
"down" into the "sheet" once this simplified analogy is
extended by another dimension to actual 3-D space or
4-D "space-time", etc.) But even allowing this to be a mere
visual aid just to capture the imagination, there remains a
further glaring problem. Such a "space-time grid" permeating
the universe is an absolute universal reference grid no
different than the flawed ether theory it replaced over this
very issue. This leaves it as yet another theory of absolutes
and not one of relativity at all -- according to "General
Relativity", all motion is in reference to a fixed, absolute
'space-time' grid permeating the universe.
So General Relativity's basic definition completely undoes its
very reason for existence, just as shown earlier with Special
Relativity. Yet, despite the many serious conceptual flaws
at the very core of both relativity theories, such discussions
are not even open for sincere consideration in our educational
system or science media. Einstein's reputation has been
elevated to such god-like heights over the years that to
sincerely point out even such clear flaws in plain view is
considered unthinkable heresy by many who see themselves
as members of the scientific community.
Perhaps now, more than ever, we need to heed this quote:
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy
of truth" -- Albert Einstein
Q: Since particles never exceed light-speed in
accelerators, doesn't this prove Einstein right?
A: No, this simply reveals the true nature of electric and
==> The true nature of electricity & magnetism
magnetic fields. These experiments claim that tiny subatomic
particles gain so much mass near light speed that they are
impossible to accelerate any further, even if the entire power
output of a city were put to the task. Sound far-fetched? Yes,
of course it is! The only reason particles can't be accelerated
past light speed is because that is the limit of the method used
to accelerate the particles. If the electric or magnetic fields
used for accelerating particles have an inherent speed-of-light
acceleration limit themselves then more energy will only
make each push more solid, but will never accelerate particles
beyond this built-in speed limit of the machine itself. But
today's scientists don't truly understand the nature of electricity
or magnetism -- if they did they would be able to explain how
magnets cling endlessly to refrigerators.
is explained in Ch. 5, showing good reason
why particle accelerators have a built-in
light-speed limit, debunking this apparent
evidence for Special Relativity Theory.
Q: What about atomic clocks flown on jets, which
seem to show Einstein's Time Dilation Effect?
A: Even Einstein’s own theory shows this is impossible!
As shown above in the Twin Paradox explanation, Einstein's
Special Relativity Theory has a logical flaw, initially appearing
to predict such effects, but a closer examination shows that
they should not occur. We could consider either the airplane
or the Earth below to be in motion since everything is relative,
giving totally opposite results. So, even according to Einstein's
own theory there should be no absolute time difference when
an atomic clock is flown on a jet. This is a theory that clearly
displays its own futility, which should be expected from any
theory whose basic mathematical support is propped up by
clear errors and improper hidden mathematical operations.
So why do we hear reports of success in these atomic clock
experiments? Since we have no rational or scientific reason to
expect such effects, it stands to reason that these reports are
either erroneous or they reflect other effects such as turbulence
or acceleration effects on the plane and instruments. Note that
although it is commonly stated that atomic clocks operate by
reading the inner oscillations of individual atoms, in actuality
they are very cumbersome, delicate instruments that operate
on the external properties of clouds of atoms as they are
accelerated and irradiated by various fields. One could imagine
many ways in which the delicate machinery of an atomic clock
might be affected by a variety of environmental influences that
might occur on an airplane flight. Again, Einstein's own relativity
theory states that we could look at the situation from either
perspective -- a moving atomic clock on a jet or a stationary
clock and jet as the Earth moves instead -- invalidating any
claims that one absolute result was experimentally observed.
Q: Isn't there still further evidence that appears
to support Special Relativity Theory though?
A: Yes there are still further lab experiments and thought
==> Try your own hand at this or turn to
experiments that are commonly touted as proof, each of which
can be readily shown to either have clear logical flaws or
simple commonsense explanations other than "time dilation",
"relativistic mass increase", or "space-time contraction".
Chapter 5 for the answers.
Q: Did it really all begin with a "Big Bang" where
all the matter in the universe was compressed
to a space smaller than an atom?
A: Of course not. Today’s belief in the Big Bang / Expanding
Universe theories has even led today’s astronomers to claim
that some type of mysterious antigravity force is pushing the
galaxies apart -- faster and faster the more distant they are.
Such a force has never been observed in any experiment or
explained by any scientific theory, and it even violates our most
cherished laws of physics. Where does this mysterious force
come from and how is its ever-accelerating effect powered?
Even the term "Big Bang" first arose as a disparaging reference
to this theory from the noted astronomer Fred Hoyle.
The only reason this concept ever arose is because light from
distant galaxies is Red-Shifted -- i.e. it arrives with its colors
shifted toward the low end of the visible spectrum where red
light resides. It was assumed that this was the same as the
Doppler Effect for sound, which describes the shift to lower
frequencies in sound waves from objects that are speeding
away. However, sound waves are completely different from
light. Sound is not pure "sound energy" but compression waves
within an atmosphere of air molecules, while light is considered
to be a very strange form of pure energy, full of "quantum-
mechanical" mysteries and paradoxes. Not only is there no
clear scientific reason to link the Doppler Effect of sound with
the Red Shift of light, but it is well known that light is easily red
shifted by simply passing it through gases or plastics. The
Compton Effect is a very well known cause for shifts in light
frequency, and has nothing to do with motion of the light source.
And as any astronomer knows, distant starlight passes through
billions of light-years of various gases, plasmas, and fields
before arriving at our telescopes. Is it any surprise that the
further away a galaxy is, the more Red-Shifted its light?
==> The Big Bang Theory myth is debunked
further in Chapter 6.
Q: OK, so scientists are still struggling to even
explain gravity, but isn’t this just academic?
Doesn't today's science still function fine?
A: Absolutely not! As just mentioned, we have no explanation
for the power source for gravity, we have numerous theories
of gravity in our science right now (Newton’s, Einstein’s,
Quantum Gravity, MOND, TeVeS, etc.), and all these theories
have impossible physical implications that overturn everything
we know about matter and energy, violate our laws of physics
or simply fall apart upon serious critical inspection. The recent
"Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" inventions are prime
examples. This is no small failure of our current science!
==> The new description of gravity in Ch. 2
shows that our galaxy doesn't contain billions
of "gravity-generating stars", but billions of
stars and solar systems that exhibit a very
different gravitational phenomenon, likely
resolving this great mystery in our science.
Q: It is often stated that Quantum Mechanics
is one of the most accurate and elegant
theories in science. Is this correct?
A: Given our lack of understanding of so much in nature today,
we have no choice but to invent theories and refine -- or even
hammer -- them into experimental agreement. There is no doubt
that something very different occurs within the atom (and in the
phenomenon known as energy today), and it shouldn't be
surprising that we are resourceful enough to invent some sort
of explanation, but we have mistaken models for reality.
Quantum Mechanics is merely a very bizarre, mysterious
mathematical model that has undergone tremendous work by
generations of scientists straining for experimental agreement.
As a result, it makes all manner of counterintuitive, bizarre
claims about our world, when in actuality ours is a very simple,
commonsense world when seen from the right perspective.
To quote from the article "Was Einstein Right?" by staff writer
and editor George Musser, Scientific American, Sept 2004:
"As Einstein was among the first to realize, quantum
mechanics, too, is incomplete. It offers no reason for why
individual physical events happen, provides no way to get
at objects' intrinsic properties and has no compelling
And from "The Master's Mistakes" by Karen Wright,
Discover magazine, Sept 2004:
"In the 1920s quantum mechanics became the rage, and
it advanced by leaps and bounds, thanks in large part to
Einstein's persistent efforts to discredit it."
==> Quantum Mechanics is debunked, and the
subatomic realm properly explained in Ch. 5
Q: Is light really sometimes a wave and
sometimes a particle (the photon)?
A: The true nature of light has been hotly debated for centuries.
Today's science states light is mysteriously both a wave and a
particle, depending on the detection method. This bizarre
belief even leads to the conclusion that detecting starlight as
either a wave or a particle then instantly reaches back billions
of years in space and time to determine the corresponding form
in which the light was originally transmitted. Such impossible
time travel beliefs show just how lost today's science is due to
its blind belief in quantum-mechanical theory as the true
physical description of nature.
In fact, it is very easy to debunk even our simplest beliefs about
light today. For example, it is currently believed light-waves
somehow "cancel" in "destructive interference" when they meet
out of phase so that the peaks of one wave coincide with the
valleys of another. Yet, a simple experiment crossing 2 light-
beams from common laser pointers shows that it is impossible
for light to vanish into thin air simply because 2 beams are mis-
aligned (out of phase). In fact, it is a violation of the Law Of
Conservation Of Energy to even expect this to occur. Light is
not a mysterious quantum-mechanical wave-particle entity, but
something much simpler to understand.
==> The true nature of light is finally exposed in
Ch. 5 since the new subatomic principle from
from Ch. 4 also relates to energy of all types.
Q: But don't the famous Double-Slit experiments
verify both the wave theory of light and its
bizarre quantum-mechanical particle nature?
A: No. In fact, quite the opposite. For generations this
erroneous belief has simply been repeated without thinking
it through. The wavelike interference pattern in this experiment
is always equated to water waves interfering. But water waves
are not "waves of pure water energy" in the same manner that
we think of waves of light energy; they are a wavelike group
behavior of countless particles (water molecules). Interference
patterns between water waves are the result of interaction
between groups of particles, not "waves of pure water energy".
So, why is this analogy used as proof that a similar interference
pattern between light-beams is an interaction between "waves
of pure light energy"? Simply because our instructors merely
accept and repeat what they’ve been told, mentally locking
themselves and us into the flawed science legacy that we have
inherited. In actuality though, the Double Slit experiment is
clear evidence for an interaction between groups of countless
particles of light, just as the water-wave analogy would imply.
But what is meant by "particles of light"? This is not a reference
to today's even more mysterious quantum-mechanical photons,
but something much simpler that arises from the same sub-
atomic principle that runs throughout The Final Theory. Also,
this new perspective solves the mystery of why an interference
pattern appears even when individual light photons are shot one
by one through the slits. The answer is really quite simple and
straightforward, removing all the mysterious and bizarre
"quantum-mechanical" myths we are taught today.
Further, with the new understanding that this experiment shows
group particle interaction and not individual energy wave
interference, it is now easy to see why experiments with beams
of electrons also show a similar interference pattern. Far from
proof that even matter (electrons) has a bizarre wave-particle
dual nature (as Quantum Mechanics states today), this merely
shows straightforward particle interaction, just as we would
expect from electrons. But what does this all mean?
==> This is all clearly explained in Ch. 5. Not only
is the true nature of light finally explained,
but a definitive end is finally brought to the
bizarre theory of Quantum Mechanics.
Q: Where does Einstein's famous E = mc2
equation come from, why does this simple
equation apply to the atom bomb, and how is
it that matter converts into pure energy?
A: This equation has been largely misunderstood and
misrepresented. It is often shown in complex mathematical
derivations and is said to literally describe matter mysteriously
converting into energy in an atom-bomb explosion -- a process
that is completely unexplained even today. But, in actuality,
this equation is extremely easy to derive in only a few lines of
simple math, and does not truly describe a process as
mysterious as a transformation of "matter into energy".
For starters, consider that the classic kinetic energy equation,
K.E. = ½mv2, is almost identical to Einstein's equation. In fact,
it only differs by the factor-of-two term. That is, if we write
the kinetic energy of an object traveling at light speed, the
classic kinetic energy equation would be E = ½mc2. This is
precisely Einstein's equation, only divided by two. So, why are
these two equations so similar, and what does this really tell us
about the nature of light, energy, and the atomic bomb? Here's
a further hint in a simple four-line derivation that can easily be
arrived at for Einstein's equation, based on well-known
equations for the momentum of light:
p = E/c -- momentum of light, p, equals its energy
content divided by its speed
p = mc -- momentum of light, stated in terms of its
classical momentum, mass x speed
E/c = mc -- equating the two momentum terms in
the two lines above
E = mc2 -- rearranging the above line gives
Einstein’s famous equation
==> For the full truth about this equation and
what it really says about light, energy, and
the atomic bomb see Chapter 6.
Q: Science says protons are positively charged
and tightly clustered in the nucleus, but like-
charges would strongly repel in such close
proximity. Why doesn’t the nucleus fly apart?
A: This mystery has no true answer in today's science.
Scientists used to scratch their heads over this issue decades
ago -- until they simply decided the answer must be that some
type of mysterious attracting force must appear for some
unexplained reason between protons when they are very close,
counteracting their mutual repulsion. This mysterious new
attracting force is called the Strong Nuclear Force, and is now
taught as one of the four fundamental forces of nature in today’s
science. Yet, this is clearly just bad science -- a closer look
shows many serious flaws with this entire picture.
First, consider the endless repelling electric charge force that
tirelessly pushes the positively charged protons apart. Where is
the power source behind this endless repulsion, and how can it
be that this mysterious power source is never drained or even
diminished in the slightest? Benjamin Franklin invented this
Electric Charge Theory to explain why charged objects repel or
cling to each other, but his theory overlooked the fact that this
concept violates our most basic laws of physics. Objects or
particles should not be able to endlessly attract or repel each
other, and without even a power source in sight. This is the
first problem with positively charged protons in the nucleus, and
also with the concept of negatively charged electrons held in
orbit about the nucleus by an endless unknown power source.
Secondly, this clearly flawed concept in our science legacy was
merely glossed over and patched with yet another scientifically
unexplained force -- the Strong Nuclear Force. Now we have
two scientifically unexplained forces behind the stability of the
atom (the Electromagnetic Force between charged particles
and the Strong Nuclear Force), both acting endlessly and with
no known power source.
==> Electric Charge is re-explained in Ch. 4
according to the new subatomic principle,
explaining atomic structure and showing
the Strong Nuclear Force to be a completely
Q: So does this mean our entire atomic theory is
wrong -- both the old "solar system" atomic
model and today’s quantum-mechanical one?
A: Yes, of course it does. Scientifically impossible theories
that violate our common sense and our fundamental laws of
physics are the hallmark of bad science and do not belong in
our scientific beliefs. There is nothing wrong with creating
useful working models to help us to think about our world while
we continue searching, but our legacy of working models has
been mistaken for true knowledge and understanding.
Many of today’s scientists now take Newton’s working model of
gravity literally, as if there were truly an endless gravitational
force emanating from the atom. Others literally believe in
Einstein's even more mysterious gravitational model of the atom
somehow warping a 4-dimensional realm around it. We are also
taught to literally accept models of the inner atom in which
endless, completely unexplained electromagnetic and strong
nuclear forces are at work, now said to act according to bizarre
"quantum-mechanical" laws. Further, magnetic materials such
as iron are said to have atoms that possess inherent
magnetism -- magnetic energy that operates endlessly and
with no known power source, giving us permanent magnets.
Taken together, the atom is said to expend endless internal
strong nuclear force energy, endless internal electromagnetic
energy, endless external electromagnetic energy (in the bonds
between atoms), endless external gravitational energy and
endless external magnetic energy -- all with no known power
source driving these varied forces. This state of affairs is
merely accepted as proper science today.
==> The atom is completely re-explained in
Ch. 4, removing all of today's scientifically
impossible beliefs about the atom.
Q: A major feature of the anticipated Theory Of
Everything is that it finally shows where our
natural constants originate vs. just measuring
them today. Does The Final Theory do this?
A: Yes indeed! At the end of Chapter 3 the new gravity theory
is compared with Newton’s at the most fundamental level -- the
simplest atom in nature: the Hydrogen atom. The theoretical
gravitational force of this single atom according to Newton
is calculated, with all values filled in except Newton’s
gravitational constant, G . Then this is mathematically equated
with the gravity of this atom using the new equation of gravity
according to the new theory, leaving only Newton’s gravitational
constant as an unknown. Solving the equation gives precisely
the known measured value for Newton’s gravitational constant --
including even the correct units.
==> This is the first time a natural constant has
ever been arrived at by pure calculation
according to any theory.
Q: If this is truly the final theory, shouldn’t
it say something about time as well?
A: Yes it should, and it does. The concept of time in today's
science is more science-fiction than science. Our scientific
beliefs about time, based on Einstein’s Special Relativity
Theory, state that time varies with relative speed, meaning that
the laws of chemistry and physics would have to vary between
all moons and planets, which all differ in relative speed. A
growing number of scientists even believe time travel is
possible via some sort of cosmic-sized, wormhole-based time
machines powered by unfathomable amounts of "negative
energy". All manner of fanciful beliefs surround the concept of
time in today’s science.
But time is actually very easily understood, with none of the
bizarre features of today’s science. For example, although
we commonly think of time as driving events in our world, it is
purely energy that drives everything. Take the batteries out of a
clock and it stops, regardless of any notion of time. But what is
energy and how does it relate to time? According to our laws of
physics energy can change form but can never be destroyed,
which means it always remains active and available without
ever tiring. But what drives the tireless availability and endless
activity of energy? Today’s understanding of energy differs little
from stories of magic -- a mysterious, ethereal, active entity
that we have learned to control via various devices. We really
know little more about the true nature of energy when we stop
to think about it. But, all forms of energy are easily understood
in clear physical terms from the new perspective in The Final
Theory, giving a powerful new understanding of the concepts
of both energy and time that hold such mystery for us today.
Q: Lots of good points but if even our most basic
science is so full of holes why do scientists
simply ignore this and forge ahead inventing
more bizarre new theories to add to the fray?
A: What else can they do? No doubt they would gladly fix all
these glaring problems if they had the proper understanding,
but they don’t. They are our science authority today and so are
unwilling to admit that all they really know is what they've
been told -- a centuries-old legacy of scientifically impossible
beliefs from a much simpler time (electrons and galaxies have
been known for barely a century). Since our scientists still
lack a true understanding of our universe they have little choice
but to staunchly defend the science legacy they have inherited,
continuing to work within this flawed framework. These working
models have served us well during the past few centuries of our
scientific infancy, but we are now sophisticated enough that
we cannot pretend they literally describe our world anymore.
Q: So, what can be done about this situation?
A: Read The Final Theory and spread the word! Until now it
has been pointless to challenge the accepted science paradigm
(although some have tried) since no one had arrived at the
understanding that truly explains our world. The Final Theory
finally gives this knowledge and understanding to the public,
which, as history has shown time and time again, is where all
revolutions must begin. Don’t wait for today’s science
authorities to admit how little they truly know and embrace a
theory that shows everything they profess is wrong -- it may
be a very long wait! Read The Final Theory, reclaim your
birthright to truly understand your universe in your lifetime, and
be part of the coming scientific revolution!
Q: If The Final Theory is the revolutionary Theory
Of Everything, why isn't it headline news? Why
haven't I heard of it? Why isn't it in stores?
A: You have heard of it -- this is your notification. The book
is newly published, promotion is just starting and you are one of
the first to discover it. As such, it hasn't become headline
news .. yet. Everything needs a beginning, even the Theory Of
Everything. Unfortunately, many misguided attempts at this
theory have already been made. This shows that many people
know something is wrong with our science -- so much so that
they are trying desperately to fix it themselves -- but many of
these enthusiasts have ultimately done more harm than good
by forcefully pushing their pet theories in the face of clear flaws.
For better or worse, The Final Theory has arrived in the midst
of this rather tarnished environment, making it difficult for the
scientific community or the press to give it due consideration.
The Final Theory isn't in bookstores at the moment because it
is published by a Print-On-Demand publisher, which only prints
and ships copies as they are ordered. P.O.D publishers do
not print thousands of copies up front and distribute them to
bookstores. Although P.O.D. is fast becoming a popular
publication method, and the quality and appearance of the
books are identical to those on the shelves, most book
reviewers and columnists are not accustomed to this method
and will not consider P.O.D. titles for review.
Due to these realities, The Final Theory won't appear widely in
the media, the scientific press, or the corner bookstore for the
moment. It is up to individual seekers to order it and read it for
themselves. As such, this FAQ was created to give as much
information as possible to potential readers, considering that it
is not possible to flip through the book before purchasing.
Q: If this really is the Theory Of Everything and
the answers are so simple, why not just state
what this new theory says here?
A: Although the answers are indeed solid and simple, very
rational and commonsense, and completely developed in the
book, they do still represent a completely different perspective
on all of our science and experience; you will never view even
falling objects the same way again after reading this book!
Such a radical new perspective on our universe requires a
proper context and solid foundation. Otherwise many questions
come to mind .. if that is so, then what about this? And how
does it explain that? Etc. Rest assured that all questions are
fully addressed and all points clearly explained in the book, but
justice couldn't be done to this new theory in any less than
the 400+ pages it contains -- there would be too many doubts
and questions otherwise. The theory itself is not complicated,
but it must be solidly applied to every aspect of our science
and our personal experience, from Newtonian gravity to
quantum mechanics and everything in between. This FAQ
clearly shows many major flaws in our current science -- many
of which are not even currently recognized today -- and goes as
far as possible and reasonable to show that the author knows
what he is talking about and that The Final Theory has the
answers. The rest is up to you!