Space Revisited

Good day,

Einstein did open up the idea of the particle aspect of wave propagation and he did elude to the importance of particle mass on space and space's subsequent 'warping' however the pursuit of the Big Bang has left these ideas farrow.  Where Einstein's contributions place the function of Space on the highest order of importance of understanding and then the Big Bang theorist reduce Space almost completely out of the equation.  I see that the best way of understanding particle interaction comes from the understanding of Space and its subsequent Shapes.  I'm not shy about allowing a fourth dimensional space existing before the beginning of this three dimensional space.  I'll also goes as far as being willing to acknowledge a fifth spatial dimension.  I do insist that the only parallel universes are those established by the passage of time and that time is 'linear' and progressive.  Time doesn't loop back on itself and always moves forward with respect to the third dimensional space.

Therefore when I refer to Space I am not referring to the third nor the forth dimensional space but of the substance between these, however it is possible that it is more than a spatial forth dimensional three dimensional spatial manifestation.  The closest approximation that I had imagined this construction was called the "ether" of Einstein's era and before.  However I believe there to be distinct and functional attributes that cause real and measurable effects on three dimensional particles and waves. The upshot of all this is that the only purpose of time is to indicate the direction of forth dimensional space from third dimensional space.  In this respect there is no moral differential therefore cosmology is not a factor in physics.  If cosmology is factored in then it becomes a subjective version of reality based in an artificially construction and can only fall short as far as Science is concerned.

This might seem contradictory to earlier posts.  Any contradiction is an illusion of misunderstanding the fundamental concept of meditating on scripture and receiving a clear understanding of the circumstances of life.  Then there is the  contemplation of natural law which reveals the way of the Divine design.  Both reveal God's intentions if one is searching for God's intentions since God is by definition the source.  It is cause that can be interfered with by mankind.  This is a Universal concept verified by the main religions I have had a chance to read about and by what I have been told of by others.  No atheist that I have run across has been able to supply any other explanation for source nor have been able to explain observable factors of natural laws that are clearly beyond the scope of any man's and/or woman's control.  This is a fair summation that indicates a supreme divine creator and only an insane person will argue against this.  It is fair to know if your source is insane although they may be able to do the tasks that any primate can do.

It is this interference that can distort true nature of Space and Shape especially when particles are taken from their natural state by unnatural means and their wave properties are distorted and even completely distorted.  Einstein already demonstrated the power techniques of observation can hide and reveal aspects of Space and Shape.  It might seem if you've read any of the earlier blogs here that I am belaboring this one specific experiment of Einstein's however with its relatively passive selection of cause and observation of result it demonstrates more than the wave and particle aspects of photons.  It is a very tangible example of the importance of experimental interaction and observation.

Peace.

Stephen

Science without Cosmology

Good day,

I have been and will continue to speak out against the Big Bang Theory because of the followers of this belief have forgotten the views it was contrasting and have made into a religion instead of it's intended purposes for which it is now outmoded and being a theory of mankind it is disposable and should be as soon as possible.  Oh and it has been possible for sometime now.  Most of the theories have already been demonstrated to not need the Big Bang Theory to be substantiated and those that do are week and distracting from the pursuit of real science.  The other reasoning to abandon the Big Bang Theory is that it has deteriorated into philosophic destructive immoral drivel.

Although Monsignor George Lemaitre tried to keep his faith and science apart and I am not one to know an others mind I am certain from my own experience that spirit mind and body are connected and that true convictions of God shape a persons perception of the world around them and how they speak and write about it. Yes I admit that I am much more forward about the God reality of the natural world and the scientific pursuit of understanding it.  I do believe that no cosmology is needed to justify any science and God certainly does not need science to exist!

It is truly a sad state of affairs that those who profess to be atheist can not come up with anything scientific that is not steeped in Judaic-Christian belief can continue to maintain that they do not believe in any sort of divinity.  One of the main conceptions that I find flawed in the conception of the Big Bang Theory is the belief in a single point beginning.  If there is no origin of the initial beginning then the beginning is arbitrary.  This sort of logic is one of the very fundamentals of most mathematical proofs.  If for quantities "x" and for quantities "x=1" then... however it is a presumption that there is a finite quantity of matter, therefore x cannot go to infinity and an end point has to be defined.  Lets say that "X" equals the highest quantity of "x+ N" were N=X-x.   That the primeval atom is "A" and regardless of any theories after Lemaitre's 1927 hypothesis A=X. and even now their is no actual singular empirical representation of this transition by Big Bang Theorist to any exclusive decisiveness.

This was one of the many concepts that I had explored in 1982 when I was in high school.  The most basic of the widely accepted formulas that I have no need to dispute is Planck's simple relationship of the energy of a photon (e) to the photon's frequency (f) by using Planck's constant (h). e=hf.  Einstein's relationship between energy (E) and the mass of matter (M) in relationship to the speed of light (c). E=Mcc.  Then the hypothesis that the amount of mass can be totaled and when combined with the total energy of the Universe outside of  the mass and matter can rectified as mass this can be considered to be, by definition, X.  E=Xcc.  Then if A is actually a photon then the frequency of this photon can be solved for.  e=Xcc.  Therefore this frequency (f of A) = (Xcc)/h.  A simple solution for the wavelength (w) comes from fw=c, w=c/f.  w=h/Xc.  Therefore regardless of whether there is or is not a Big Bang or a primeval particle the smallest subdivision of a photon is w.  If and only if h and c are constants and c is the greatest velocity that can be achieved. 

Since our observations are limited to light (of various frequencies) then even if there are particles that might move faster than the speed of light we won't be able to obverse them as such and until a manner of observation can substantiate particles (or waves or whatever it might turn out to be) moving faster than the speed of light w should hold as a smallest unit of measure.  Weather or not w is a singular unit (or what some might refer to as a quanta measurement) I have not tried to verify.  What I was interested in at the time was the idea if something traveled faster than the speed of light then it would have to be smaller than the particle component of w.  If such a particle existed  and maintained a 'wave packet' profile then it prove that there could not be a primeval particle (although the Big Bang theorist would probably increase the amount of Matter/Mass in the Universe to appease this or exclaim they left out a certain amount of energy out of their claim

It really is an interesting idea of working out the total mass and total energy of the Universe and some have claimed to have done this.  However as far as a real scientific quantity the verifiability of such claims is of course impossible.  An other little wrinkle of this is an other strike against the idea of a black hole.  This idea is not contained by the presupposition that the Big Bang Theory' primeval particle displays waves particles.  Which would mean that it has no rotation and no properties that would lend any aspects of ever being part of a harmonic system i.e. it does not vibrate nor does it have the capacity to do so.  Truly, other wise it would traveling and if it is the only thing of the Universe, the beginning, then where is it going.  By the actual definition that is, if these limitations seem preposterous then the Big Bang Theory is not about the particle, the particle is sequential.  It is the nature of Space it's self.  But as soon as you step into Space it all becomes subjected to Relativity and then the Big Bang Theory is stuck in the Steady Space Theory that it has supposedly superseded.  So the Big Bang Theories primeval particle has to be a photon, the highest possible energy photon.  If all the mass and energy of the Universe can be suspended in a single photon then if matter is being pulled together before it can reach a critical mass to form form a black hole, it actually is reformed into high energy photons.  This formation we see all the time not only is the specific case of our sun Sol, but through out the observational journals of astronomy through out all the recorded time we have gathered. 

Now if this is a photon, then it has to be traveling, but where is it going and where has it come from.  Again it is no longer about the particle but about Space.  Therefore there is no scientific presidency for a Big Bang Theory of any type.  It doesn't mean that people can't have a Big Bang Theology but there is nothing left for Science in the Big Bang Theory.  True Science has suffered the demands of the Big Bang Theology long enough!  Lets talk about Space!

It is true that my ideas do come from scripture, but it is not that I am trying to validate my belief, I believe that there are some many different things outside of these realms of science that confirms my faith, and that is what it is my own, and anyone else's opinion is only their opinion of their own faith.  These things of faith are themselves singularly one's own.  What I do know is that my meditations on the first chapter of the First Book of Moses, Genesis, have led me to seeing far beyond the very limiting concepts and constrictions of the Big Bang Theory.  If people want to believe in the Big Bang Cosmology that is their own choose, everyone is free to choose their own religion and theology regardless of the United Nations stance on such reality.  I am a naturally born United States of America citizen and such things are self evident.  When I speak of how I have come across these ideas is to encourage those to come to allow a higher wisdom to govern their thoughts because mankind is limited and subjective. I badger those who hold onto the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution as pointedly as possible because they have imposed a strangle hold on the World Scientific Community and have kept the best of science from helping the multitude.

Scripture can not confirm any idea of physics.  It is not the nature of the texts.  However it is intended to teach ethics and morality and scientists around the world will always have need to know how to use the amount of virtue they have been given for the greater good more so than others.  More so is ethics and morality for the scientists because they have been given a great responsibility.  They are the teachers of teachers and have been charged with tasks that people and even themselves may not understand why they have to be done.  Often they themselves do not have the resources to carry out their research and maybe able to find these resources offered by others.  What are these terms of these others?  Are they also scientists?  Are they capable of granting the liberty the scientist needs to be wrong?  Or is the scientists to set aside their own ideas to pursue an others?  These are only the slightest important realities that all scientists need a strong foundation in ethics and morality.  Sometimes a scientist might have delved so deep into their field that even their peers are uncertain about what is being discussed.

Peace,

Stephen

Science for the Good of Mankind vs Big Bang Theories' Fascism

Good day,

Even though the Big Bang Theory was first proposed by the Roman Catholic priest, Fr. Georges Lemaitre in 1927 in his writing "Un Univers homogène de masse constante et de rayon croissant rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des nébuleuses extragalactiques" (or in English) "A homogeneous Universe of constant mass and growing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extragalactic nebulae" which was published in the Belgum Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles  which translates as Annals of the Scientific Society of Brussels in English.  There is an ever expanding library of evidence that The current Big Bang hypothesizes are inaccurate.  I am not arguing against his writings which have since been attributed to Edwin Hubble at this moment but to the misconceptions of the incongruousness of the idea that the Judaic-Christian God and science are incompatible. 

Science is only effective if human-beings maintain the flexibility to be put aside their theories when they are demonstrated to be inaccurate.  Surely as I have pointed out in earlier blogs that there are a number of different ideas of physic mechanics that were demonstrated to hold true long before the Big Bang Theory was suggested.  Just because those ideas were incorporated into the Big Bang Theory does not mean the Big Bang Theory has been demonstrated to hold true.  Basically what it suggests is that there has been a rationalization of ideas and since many of the current ideas that are put forth as being part of the Big Bang mythos do not subscribe to Einstein's and Lemaitre's work then the Big Bang Theory has become the raving  of schizophrenic minds.  It is a sad state of affairs that these ideas are even being considered to be valid because when they are scrutinized they fail to predict anything outside a singularly closed system (the Big Bang Theory has slowly been trying to close itself off from chemistry and the wide variety of elements that we depend on for our own lives) but fail to be able to reconcile various other phenomena that also occur even within the very small singular set of conditions.

The reason why has to do with the old idea of the Ether, or as I sometimes refer to it more specifically "the Shape of Space" or as the ancient Greeks discuses it as Void.  In some sort of crude and savage manner some of the properties of the Shape of Space the Big Bang Theorists are trying to convey as being Dark Matter. I have already written about the lack of credibility of the Dark Matter conjecture of the feeble minded.  I am not addressing this in this blog.  The point above all else has to do with the lack of need for science to have a singular cosmology!  This means that the Big Bang Theory is not only meaningless to science, having no merits of it's own to contribute to the furthering of scientific understanding, But to actually define a cosmology in math restricts the individual's ability to experience spiritual growth.

All religions have a cosmology for the Judaic-Christian faiths this is outlined in the first two chapters of the First Book of Moses "Genesis".   There isn't anything specific about this particular cosmology and if I can paraphrase the current Pope the Big Bang Theory is not necessarily sacrilege, which is different than saying it is Christian doctrine.  One of the essential duties of any Pope is to negotiate treaties with worldly authorities.  During the Second World War the Pope had to plead for the Catholics living within Germany and the territories that Germany had and would later invade.  There are outsiders that do not understand why this was done however thousands of condemned non-Catholics were smuggled out of Germany's torturous grasp.  Another crucial function of the Pope is to continue the legacy of Saint Peter to whom Jesus Christ had given "the Keys to Heaven".  Again some outsiders do not understand the importance of God's Mercy and Grace, and some of the ideas are so controversial that those who did not understand them have gone to great lengthens to cause mass violence and oppression against Catholics. 

As I have stated before I do not want any such violence or repositories against those who subscribe to the Big Bang Theory or Evolution.  I am merely speaking out against the madness and ignorance of these theories.  They fall far short of what science has found of the world and that which surrounds it and permeates it.  When asked about the Pope's statement my first reaction was that he didn't know of the staggering amount of evidence contrary to the Big Bang Theory.  Then a quiet second after that I realized the Pope was demonstrating God's Divine Mercy.  As you can tell I am not bashful of tell those who still cling to the inferior Big Bang Theory and Evolution, but I am not the Pope.  I am not looking for rewards and awards of this world.  The paralyzing grip of the mass insanity of the world scientific community is staggering and it is better to shout out loud against the din of their stupidity because maybe someone will notice the idiots are wrong and there is a way of peace the Almighty has made if they are brave and turn away from the tyrants of war and continually ask God to show them how to bring a little more Peace to those they may. 

Peace,

Stephen

Relativity vs Quatum Mechanics

Good day,

I have been writing about the wisdom that the Big Bang theorists have left out from there conjectures of the nature of worldly matters.  Firstly that there is a God and they are far from being God. Second it is not all about the particles that make up matter and that it is more about how matter creates a space an area of influence around it because it is these areas of influence that causes the effects that we perceive and as importantly or even more importantly what we can't perceive.

This past July (2012) there was much to do about the theorized Higgs boson when CERN announced that they might have observed such a particle.  The long and the short of it is that Higgs had conjectured that there were other particles amongst the makeup of the subatomic particles in the 1960's with several other scientists.  Besides formulating a theory to explain various aspects of unifying the 'weak force' with the electromagnetic force there are calculations aimed at discrepancies in mass of subatomic particles when certain experiences were done.  Decades earlier Einstein had championed physicist Satyendra Nath Bose's subatomic particle theory for whom after the 'boson' acquired it's name.

The 'Higgs' boson is presented as an quantum particle i.e. a minimum unit and indivisible.  As I had alluded to before there had been a branch in ancient Greek philosophy that conjectured the idea of  an Atom.  A subset of  unobservable particles from which all mater is constructed from.  In many ways during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries understandings of the elements brought back the idea of the atom and as observational technology developed our current elemental atomic periodic table was formulated.  There were about two centuries of activity when many of the essential ideas where debated and revised.  Zeno's paradoxes started the second foil of the development of atomic theory.  Not only the aspects of what makes up matter but as importantly how, or even more distressing, does matter move.  The upshot of the ancients' discourses came to the choose of two choices: one; there must be an absolute singular minimum size of matter and time because matter moves, two; that matter does not move, it simply is where it is and then it is somewhere else.

The idea of an Atom went beyond those particles noted on the elemental table and the currently recognized subatomic particles.  Fire was also considered to be composed of matter composed of Atoms.  Einstein was able to validate this idea that light was not only a wave but was also a particle by constructing an experiment that altered the way we looked at light.  The two experiments Einstein constructed demonstrated a perspective that showed the wave quality of light in one and the other demonstrated the particle quality of light.  The 'photon' and 'wave-packet' construction substantiated the centuries old ideas of an Atom.  I'm not writing about an Atom per se, the ancients idea of an Atom stipulates an indivisibility and indestructible quality for an Atom, as well as a stipulation that an Atom is completely solid and without void.  This construction of solidity I believe to be a reaction to contradict those who insisted on the dominance of void over matter and the voids permutation throughout all matter.


What I am conjecturing is that the understandings of the various forces that fall within and without the unified field theories is not a matter of quantum reduction but that the solution to these discrepancy is a matter of properly recognizing the appropriate reference spatial systems and solving for their relative quantities.  That the lack of a measurable mass when it is known that a particle has mass can simple be case demonstrating the wave properties of the particle excluding the matter properties of the particle.  It is easier to work out how to insure that Schrodinger's cat emerges from the box dead than it is alive.  To paraphrase an early test jet propulsion saying; you can get anything to fly if your strap a large enough rocket to it. 

I had discussed before about the idea of a relativity beyond general relativity.  Further more if there is a non-Euclidean spatial relationship then it is possible for there to be a non-Euclidean spatial relationship that is of a second spatial relationship that is different than the Euclidean and the first non-Euclidean and if it is possible for there to be two different non-Euclidean spatial relationships then there must be a third possible non-Euclidean space.  If there a spatial configuration in which light can only be seen as a wave and a second in which light can be only seen as a particle then there must be two spatial representations to depict these two different perspectives.  Since these perspectives no more than one can be Euclidean.  Since both of these two different spatial relationships only demonstrate one of two different perspectives of two different properties of the same event there must be a spatial relationship that demonstrates both perspectives.  Since the duel perspective is a combination of two spatial relationships of which at least one is non-Euclidean then no less than two different non-Euclidean spatial relationships are needed to depict the three different perspectives of light.

Peace,

Stephen

Quantizs this!... and of misleading indicators.

Good day,

There are innumerable reasons why the idea of Quantum in physics does notwork out.  Sure it would be nice we see a singular apple, and for sure it is one.  However  when all apples are considered it is very quickly recognized there is an extraordinary range of variation; size, mass, color, even flavor indicating different relationships of citric acid and fructose just to name a few variations.  Even the idea of with or without steams, leaves, and what about crab-apples?  So what of these apples and oranges?  These things that we can be easily count.  In this macros we can isolate a single species, but if that in itself was singular as in being the same, then there wouldn't be hybrids.  More about  breeds?  What about dogs?  What does this have to do with subatomic particles, waves packets, and the like?  What doesn't it?  Sure we do not recognize the fur or the bark, them shedding or do we?  But that isn't even what I am referring to.  I'm not even talking about the difference as a cut of meat; shank, flank, rib, short rib, tender loin, filet mignon, and as such and a butcher cut as a hanger steak of Spencer steak and rib-eye. I extended that idea just to give a glimpse of the oversimplification Modern Physics still is in a Relative Universe.

It is my perspective that the various sub-atomic parts are broken bits as oppose to actual atomic particles.  That what it is that makes up an "atom" is probably different than what is observed.  As Einstein demonstrated they wave and particle of photos the method of observation constitutes the perception of what is being viewed.  I use the butchery terms mostly because that is what I believe is being done to form the currently view that the world scientific community is pushing as the way the Universe works and even created.  Where are the lungs, bowls, heart of these microscopic beasts?

What has been discovered and created by scientists in the various fields of physics and chemistry has seriously put a dent in the ancient Greeks idea that Atoms are singularly dense i.e. completely devoid of interior space.  Modern theory doesn't seem to have made up it's mind on weather or not they will embrace the idea that there should be a large variety of shapes and sizes.  It seems that the Big Bang theorists are determined to find their single piece from which a universe can emerge.  Which is an interesting way of looking at what the ancient Greek philosophers had debated about, however upon critical examination and an basic understanding of Christian scripture they are actually on a path of trying to find the portal into the Kingdom of God which is within.  This is the essence of the teachings of Jesus Christ son of God son of man, however Jesus Christ taught that this entrance was made through the grace of God and that acts of Charity is the only price of admission.

Although there are other such references throughout the world's religions of such a reality I am a firm believer in Jesus Christ's teachings.  I find it superior to any and all religions that I have heard and read about.  It is the Truth that spurs me on and has granted me understanding of many things however it is physics that I have been writing of here.  It is in this spiritual quest that not have I but many other great scientists have found their ideas.  Newton and Einstein are two others who had their own ways and contributed what they have found.  I have written before that the mathematics and details are too volatile to reveal at this time considering the Big Bang theorist's destructive nature.  It is as I had written above and before that their methods are crude and fueled by lack of perception.

An Atom, singular and indivisible, an idea of contemplation, but not God, an unobservable bit amongst other size and shaped Atoms that are the fundamental essence of all the material world.  Colors, shape, taste, and the like are some of the original attributes contributed  by the ancient Greeks, and some of these ideas have been incorporated into distinguishing quarks.  But then what is a quark? the modern theorists ask amongst themselves and then there is something else and others.  There are voices that already are conjecturing beyond the Higgs boson if that is what they call it.  But all in all where is gravity? and mass?  If gravity is not recognized in subatomic theory then there can be no mass.  It can't be particle and being particle is the road that lead Einstein to divulge E=mc(squared).  Then there can be no energy.  Gravity IS the unifying force of nature.  It is that it can not be seen only felt.  If without feeling then it means that it is being ignored and misunderstood.  If matter can be converted into energy then maybe it is that these bonds of strong force or week force are of mater and constitute a "strength" as a string or rope or chain.  But really this is just an idea to spoil the obvious over-site that has occurred in even applying proven ideas.

What I have recognized is that quantum or is it quanta? regardless, it is relative. and not even momentary but a product of how an event is observed and not what the event is.  Sure it yields nifty pictures but when neurologists look at MRI images of a brain they know and perceive it as a cross section, an interior image, of what is a real whole brain and it can even be from a living person.  However the Big Bang theorists seem to have no inclination of understanding that their large particle accelerator approach is not that much different than dropping a cargo shipping container full of anvils on a mustard seed to see how it will grow.

It is true that I choose astrophysics because it allows for the contrast of micro and micro to   the extreme degree, and yet I never was hung up on the idea of black holes.  I never found the idea that appealing.  To me the idea of a black hole seems to be the same type of insane drivel that a paranoid schizophrenic is hopelessly strung out on and tries to sell to others like those people who are completely obsessed with a conspiracy theory. and  the Higgs boson is one a step away from that with it sudden appearance of mass to explain some interesting phenomenon with unobservable mass in some sub-atomic particle experiments.  I'll get back to that point but it is the general idea of finding the black hole in interior of an "atom" that all though as I wrote earlier above there is the gate to Heaven within everyone and it is connected to everything.  But quantum mechanics is set up on the premise that the laws outside of "atoms" don't apply in the same way they apply inside "atoms".  Usually it is a rationalization that there are other forces that become factors that over power the rest of the forces.  Sometimes its gravity vs the strong force, but I'm not here to go into these discussion now.

The point of this is about the intersection points between the unobservable forth spacial dimension (4DS) and the observable third spacial dimension (3DS).  What if neutrons are fixed in the 3DS and 4DS, photons are traveling from 4DS to 3DS, and protons are traveling from 3DS to 4DS?  That is not exactly what is going on but its a step away from the insanity of the Big Bang theorists' construction.  Oh, and maybe the 'illusive "gravitons"' are actually the quarks and such?  That the neutron, proton, and photons are actually the illusive Atoms of the ancient Greeks and the rest of sub-atomic is like the ashen remains after fire.  Again this is not nearly as incredible as what is really going on.  This is merely a simple step away from madness and a direction towards clear understanding.  The phoenix did rise from the fire as the Egyptians tell it and even though Aristotle argued against the idea of an Atom Socrates had his fire pot.

It is clear that the ancients did know and recognized many chemical transformations; they smelted ores, made a variety of glass and pottery.  They were also adept at making pigments, and the making of breads and fermenting process of milk (cheeses and yogurt), fruit (wine), and grains (beer).  Of course some of the substitutes alluded them and were mysterious, but it is the mysteries that beacons us to search out the light.

Peace,

Stephen 

Atoms, elements,quarks, what??? the fraud of Higgs boson and other mathimatical traps of perception.

Good day,

It is impossible for atoms to be made up of quarks or any other such because of what an Atom is.  Is it possible to have an Atom of quark?  An Atom is a single particle of which all of the particles are all made up of and literally translates from the ancient Greek as "uncuttables".  These scribes of nature and their contemplations conjecture on ideas of Leucippus who might have existed and might even have taught Democritus who's existence is probable although of the few dozen works that he had written none have survived.  Others who also conjectured along these line are Epicurus and Lucretius.  I have always had a fondness for Democritus (YES THIS DOES TRANSLATE TO MEAN "chosen of the people").  He lived from 460 BC to 370 BC after Zeno of Elea, another favorite of mine who also left a few dozen discourses none of which survive except as referenced by those after him.

Modern science and mathematicians have found themselves perplexed by these ancients and what they were able to recognize and explore without the aide of preposterous machinery such as CERN and yet these scientists now claim to have found the "god particle".  I must admit that I do like to look at the pictures from these various "experiments" no matter how erroneous their conclusions are of them.  It is true that Higgs did spend a lot of ink on his ideas and of course all should but it is only with the spirit's purity can there ever be written anything compared to the absurdly profound poetry that has constructed and perpetuates the world.

For instance: what is silver, oxygen, hydrogen, and all of the rest of the "atoms" described on the periodical table of elements.  That is it!  They are elements; reduced to and described as "atoms".   Similar as in what makes up a brick of gold?  Gold!  However an "atom" of gold is not an "atom" of oxygen and not even lead.  However that did not deter those from trying to find a way of turning lead into gold.  Perhaps even as Rumpelstiltskin spin straw into gold.  Einstein saw through some of this riddle and recognized that E=Mc(squared).  However successful he was in aiding numerous scientists with various contemplations of the nature of "elemental atoms" the "Godless" created atomic bombs, abandoning any remnant of sanity and humility.  Almost the entirety of science have abandoned the human race and the foundations of the United States claim to independence and the rights of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".  Harken citizens of the world, even if they strike to destroy the United States and that may make you very happy beware for these scientists have set their minds and your money towards transforming matter into far more dangerous poisonous "atomic elements" construction even more explosive bombs that leave behind not only death and destruction but thoroughly contaminated the land, water and air in ever widening spheres.

It is not that I am here suggesting how to transform common elements into precious metals, even though I believe that to be a better use of time than creating high yield bombs.  What I am leading to is an explanation and a refinement of understanding the basic "building block" of what the Universe is composed of, or more to the point 'the decomposition' of matter.  Now there are many discrepancies between what an Atom is and what modern science calls an "atom".  However I have often found that an idea, even an erroneous one, can led to a deeper understanding into the nature of life and the world in which we live.  We know that the elements themselves have variations, therefore an element is not an Atom; C(12) with C(14), H(2) and H(3) as well as ordinary H.  That an element is determined to be of a specific piece of matter and recognized by the number of "protons" each with their "electrons", as opposed to how many "neutrons" it has.  However a "neutron", nor "proton", and certainly not an "electron" are considered to be an Atom.  Is the idea of an Atom merely an over simplification?  If so then "quantum mechanics" has to be recognized as an over simplification and if "quantum mechanics" is an oversimplification then the Big Bang Theory is an oversimplification.  As a child I was truly fascinated by the idea of an Atom and I can truly appreciate the pursuit of such an idea.  As as adult I can see it, the idea of an Atom, and recognize the wish to have some sort of defense in an uncertain world.  However, the Big Bang theorist have succumbed to their fears and have forgotten the lesson of the idea of an Atom.

But what about the "god particle" idea?  True, I do think that they think that it is the link to discovering an Atom.  But let us get serious about the scientific method to start and recognize that ultimately it means the need for them to hold down a lepton long enough to prove that it is indeed made up of Atoms and then chart these Atoms' configurations.  Ah but that is it isn't it?  What the Big Bang theorists have forgotten about science.  Especially the ancient Greeks and their shared knowledge from the greatest minds of the ancient Mediterranean territories and the Celtic traditions and teachings.  It is, physics and math, are about how to build and create, however the Big Bang theorists are all about the destruction of everything.  The riddle of an Atom is simply that, a riddle.  As much and as meaningful as Zeno of Elae's Achilles vs the tortoise paradox.  Surely there are mathematicians that claim that calculus is this riddle's solution and they a partially correct.  Calculus is only partially correct that is, however the Egyptians were able to divide the lands on the Nile to equal lots.  This is a problem that can be solved by using calculus to a satisfactory degree of accuracy.  Many conjectured that the Egyptians had to know of calculus and over a decade ago undeniable proof was found that they did.  Ergo the paradox of Achilles vs the tortoise was rhetorical, and as I had discovered that the idea of an Atom is also as such.  Socrates students have indicated that the contemplation of math and asthmatic specifically was the best and surest way of having the unseen creator disclose the nature of the world.

Peace,

Stephen

Morality and Gravity

Good day,

     I had written a version of this post a couple of weeks ago or so and been stewing on it until I lost that version.  Mostly because it is the first real postulate of the theory I had come up with nearly three decades ago that is radically different than the Big Bang Theory.  The reason I am so general about these ideas is because of the tragically destructive nature of the BBT.  In lots of ways I wonder if I have already written too much about the contrast of these two ideas that they can be extrapolated to create even more destructive weapons, and such, than we already have.

     So it is a grave decision, weighing the benefits of encouraging people to let the old, wrong, and inaccurate ideas of the BBT on the roadside to rout, or perhaps write too much, too specific, that even more destruction and it's residual fear out of the box.

     It is an ancient idea, Judaic in nature, that the Universe was created outside of the Universe.  That it is considerably smaller than the actual reality that it is founded in.  Although there are other religious creation theories… yes the dreaming gods and the navel thingy and such.  I am not here to discuss religious constructs even though I have grown up in an environment for me to see and study a very wide and healthy selection of the worlds extreme variety of religions.  I was raised and I am a Christian of the Catholic variety, Irish, with a healthy dose of Eastern European to contrast including relatives of the Russian Orthodox persuasion.  So it is from my own background that I have seen the relationship of religious understanding and it influence on thought and action.  

     In general people are people and they we do what people do.  From the apathetic to zealots, personal determinations are based primarily on the person.  However religion is fundamental.  If a person can’t wrap there brain around it the ABC’s and 123’s will never profit the individual, to paraphrase Socrates.  If you don’t know that you never read the various introductions the ancient Greeks wrote that are the current bedrock of ALL Eastern Math and Sciences.  Truly, check it out!  Go now and be quick about it… 

      There are various lessons that religion confront and teach.  Socrates and those before him brought forth from the historic ancient Egypt (probably but not proven during the era during and after Joseph’s appointment over the Pharaoh’s granaries) ideas of blending meditation with math and the sciences to obtain information from God’s messengers to deal with real life problems.  These messengers are well known as Angels, but for the ancient Greeks this would be Hermes and this idea may or may not be generally and sometime inaccurately referred to as Hermetic.  For the children of Abraham is has been handed down as Kabbalah, ‘handed down’, and begins with meditating on the relationships of the Ten Commandments with each other in a very specific way.

     So many of the ideas that I needed to come up with the unifying of Gravity with the fields had already been established and I have understood them since before I was twelve, but how to do it was the question I wasn’t able to fully answer until I was nineteen.  This was also accompanied with a specific application including proofs of mathematics which were necessary to demonstrate the various aspects of the theory and its application.  The mathematical approach that I had extrapolated and set down is different in accordance, I believe, to rectifying the problems that Newton had claimed kept him from publishing his version of what we now refer to as Calculus.

     Interestingly Newton was deep into mystical practices that undoubtedly influenced his wide range of contributions to Math and Science.  These religious practices he kept very much to himself because he feared the grave consequences that the Church of England could and probably would have imposed upon him if they were discovered.  Some of these writings were found after his death.

     So it is that religious morality, Math, and Science, have been meticulously interwoven not just by humans, but as Einstein is known to have said, “God does not play dice with the Universe.”
The math I had come up with I leave out entirely because during the 1980’s the specific designs for what was going to be the largest cyclotron ever built and the intentions of the experiments it was designed for could, if the math was applied with the BBT would suggest importance in variations of the experiment and that would lead to a catastrophic event in which not only would the entire cyclotron be destroyed, but the implosive/explosive result would leave a five mile diameter crater besides the other subsequent destructive forces radiating out from the event would probably devastate everything within a twenty-five mile radius.

     I do still reflect on a conversation I had with a physicist and a semi-retired translator for major Japanese corporations a few days before the Japanese withheld the funds they had promised for the cyclotron's completion.  I do not know if the two have anything to do with each other but it keeps me wary of what I do write about math and science.  I will not be writing anything about a wide range of topics around ‘Universal Relativity’ which has very radical approaches and solutions to various phenomena including the securing of Gravity as being unified.

     Again all of this is for the Earth’s human protection from the followers of the BBT and their less than scrupulous allies and benefactors.

    The main concepts that are the driving force behind the differences of theories I hope can be safely written about in a public forum and I trust the only destructive result will be the abandoning of the BBT, various aspects of Quantum Mechanics (which I probably won’t address for a while), and the Theory Evolution. 

     Honestly the ‘evolution’ construction is very antiquated to constructs that are based around a natural unfolding of a veritable pool of genetic constructions susceptible to surrounding replicating material.  Such an idea makes the idea of hormone treatment easily explainable and how carcinogens cause cancer and can lead to better selections of cures through focused chemical substitution that is more agreeable to replacing corrupted cells and easier to process.  Also it is the fast track to effective treatment and through understanding genetically stimulated diseases and other issues of failing biological systems due to biological deterioration and might even prove to be effective in growing organic/biologic organs for transplants.  The logic follows as far as I followed it, but biology is merely a sideline of interest for me.

     There are certain points of the theories I had come up with that touch other fields.  It has cast a shadow of misunderstanding that has inhibited all sorts of health care technologies, including non-biological organ transplants and recreating cannibalism into our culture.  Instead of eating human flesh and digesting it and leaving it to the body to disperse the nutrients some doctors will cut people opened and put the human flesh right where they think it’s needed. 

     Procurement, the taking of living flesh from somebody… I really don’t to draw out the subject of comparing organ transplanting to cannibalistic tribes but in general anthropological reports seem to depict a political process rationalized to the populous by ‘shamanistic’ leaders then structured around social events before and after hosted by the political leaders that benefit from the death.  Again, not a specialty of mine, and certainly nothing I indorse to any degree.  I bring it up because there is a deterioration of social and cultural values is happening before our eyes.

     Truly I do wish and hope for a release from these and many other bastardizations of science.  That if the current world scientific community can’t capitulate to sound science that a new generation of scientists will prevail.  So for the soundness of science and society I venture to write.

     What Gravity is.  The simple answer is…

     Gravity is the direct result of the relationship involving the fourth spatial dimension Space and third spatial dimension Matter particles.  

     The fields are precipitates of Universal Relativity.

     Universal Relativity expands the theories of Relativity that Einstein proposed.

     It is as described in the first book of Moses, Genesis, that we have free will, not only does Space control Matter, but particles of Matter are allowed to be directly effect by other particles of Matter to the extent that manipulated Matter can be accommodate by Space.  To illustrate...

     Man's will, as God allows, can be forced to an extreme; such people as Hitler and the Nazis rise to power.  Then God also predetermined that other people can rise to overcome these people when they have forced themselves well beyond the measure of other peoples' will.  Likewise physicists can force Matter to do things against Space.  This perverting Matter can not change the properties of Space.  However the observance is Relative.  Therefore the physicists only see what is happening to Matter as a fish sees what is beyond the surface of it's 'lake'.  Before the nature of Space can be effected the forced particles of Matter are rearranged as Space dictates and the particles of Matter reacts in an up perceptional way and this way is Gravity and it's perceptions are in the fields depending upon Universal Relativity.

    As the illustration is concluded... Hitler, after being defeated by his own miscalculations, committed suicide, Mussolini was hung by his own countrymen, and the Emperor of Japan was forced to abdicate to the US losing his ‘divinity’ after the US had demonstrated its ultimate downfall.  Midway, the Japanese Admiral could not concede defeat and rushed into the battle anyway.  All war scenarios after the US foothold in the Philippines was established demonstrated an ultimate Allies’ victory, however the loses on both sides were calculated a few hundred thousand.  The “Bomb” was dropped and the Emperor wouldn’t concede forcing a second “Bomb” to be dropped. 

     The stacks for mankind are high.  Einstein tried to dissuade the German scientists in the 1920’s from participating in the experiments the Nazis wanted them to perform.  Later anti-Semitic activities forced Einstein to ask several countries' governments of the European community, including France and England, to take him in.  They all refused.  Only the United States would harbor him.  These are only some of the facts regarding the importance of moral integrity for scientists.  I hope the world scientific community has a change of heart.

Peace,

Stephen A. Halkovic III

What's this rubbish of multi-universes... life on Mars? Let's get real!

Good day!

There are so many different directions to go with Space and I had been wondering which.  Oh, no.  I wasn't meaning planetary exploration, although I love the idea.  That is probably one of the reasons for studying Astrophysics in the first place.  Although simply looking at NASA's projections of flight paths, launch dates, arrivals and the like it seems like it will be sometime before any serious considerations to planetary destinations will be attempted.

But that does lead one to think about why?  For some odd reason people keep going on about life on Mars.  an unfortunate bunch of misled people.  The answer is plainly no.  Any freshman general studies astronomy course, yes 101, which covers rudimentary planetary studies, provides the answer why.  Oh, really, if it must be spelled out, sure.  Mars does not have the mass to hold an atmosphere anything like ours to sustain anything resembling remotely characteristic to any carbon based life form on Earth.  Any carbon structures have to have been formed elsewhere, although there is a possibility of formation under the surface.  The difference in mass is significant enough to show markedly if there was a catastrophic reduction leaving Mars as we can now see it.

Since I am writing about such obvious hoaxes it seems to be an imperative to nip this idea of multiple universes in the bud.  No one in their right mind can serious believes in such things.  Sure it's fun to daydream about such things and read books about what could have happened if only if... and other sorts of forms of entertainment.  But as science it isn't worth considering since there is nothing that actually suggests that there are more than the one timeline.  A time line that only goes in one direction I should add.

Sure my hypothesis is that what we preserve is set in a forth dimensional space which may or may not be set in a fifth dimensional space.  The proof is not easily verified and the mathematics and higher reasoning of physics is potential extremely dangerous with the prevalence of the BBT.  A theory that's principle has to do with everything blowing up!  Bigger and bigger bombs is all it is really good for.  Mind you I'm not against national security by any stretch of the imagination!  God bless all those who have, do, and will put their lives to that task.  I pray for them and their family and friends regularly.  The perceived threat that Hitler had developed long range rockets and a possible fission program fueled a reaction here in the United States which culminated the creation of the nuclear technology.  I am not looking for a debate about the past, but as a voice of warning what may happen if the ignorance that BBT is perpetuating.

Therefore I will only write of these things in broad generalizations.  What does seem important has to do with the relationships of Gravity, Space, and Matter.  I had mentioned the transposition of Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry.  Is this a Relativistic concept or perhaps an indicator?  For me it introduced the idea of multiple constructions of Space.  Another clue has to do with the idea of relating 'Energy' spatially.  In simple geometry everyone is told how to find the circumference of a circle, not just one, but all of them.  Likewise the one of all of Einstein's equations is similar in appearance.  Therefore the quarry: of how far can Relativity be pushed?  So supposing that Einstein's self confessed lack as a mathematician and that no one had enough insight to his ideas that the mathematical representations maybe a little askew in some respects.

Of course I know that the variables and constants are not directly related and to that sort of remark I remember that the circle is static and if the radius is a vector, that is if the circle becomes larger, does that mean if the energy increases without changes to the matter that is making up the mass does the mass still increase, or is it possible that the second of light changes?  Now if I remember right there were such experiments carried out and the mass did change.  Although I never scrutinized these tests therefore I don't recall, I can concede that.  It makes it feasible to demonstrate that if you can rectify Euclidean geometry with non-Euclidean then you can think of the properties of an atom, or nucleus as a sphere as you might take an asteroid, planet, or star as a sphere.  This really isn't outside of the box as far as constructions goes.  However what does happen, if the previous experiments have occurred to the conclusion that "c" does not change with the an increase of Energy however the radius of the sphere does as the mass increases when the matter does not change i.e. matter nor mass is expended it is induced from/by an outside source.

Therefore the observed motion of the Universe indicates an exterior source.  Not several, whether thousands or trillion, the uniformity is extreme and very predictable.  Even one less of infinity would markedly disrupt this finely tuned Universe and an infinite amount would create a standing pattern in which 'time' would stand still.

Peace,

Stephen A. Halkovic III

Space more than a frontier... vs. What is the Matter with Gravity?

Good day,

What I have found is that there is a good deal to how we look at things.  Electricity, it can be quit shocking!  I'm not certain when it was that I first electrocuted myself but I remember finding regular household items in need of rewiring.  Knowing the unapparent indiscriminate product of an event and then taking apart the circumstances to find the cause and learn that it was actually very discriminate.  Thus in the lesson learned gives allowance to then setting it to a more useful nature.  This is all very good with lamps, vacuum-cleaners, radios, and the like however there are such situation in which this approach does not work.

As far as electricity goes, or more to the point why I brought it up has to do with an intense interest the formation of OPEC and the former President's Carter actions leading to an increase of funding for alternative energies inspired me to explore various possibilities and researched them extensively.

Some very interesting ideas came to mind around the ideas and experiments involved with creating a plasma flow of  hydrogen to generate a self supporting and powering a controlled fusion reaction.  Although it was determined that it wasn't a viable alternative it made me consider why, besides seeing the first and subsequent Lunar landing throughout my childhood, did I want to study Astrophysics.  Obviously it was Solar that inspired the scientists in the pursuit of plasma Hydrogen fusion.  The expense really struck me, construction of incredible tori that in my mind made cyclotrons look like pop guns, but of no practical end.  It's really too bad, because there are so many incredible pieces of technology built that at best are really expensive toys and every once and a while something is learned.  But I digress.  Pressure, density, temperature, and a whole lot of stuff that was tried to contain and achieve Hydrogen as a plasma really fired my imagination, and added with an incredible wealth of data and such I searched and researched forcing my mind to continue to open wider and wider.

Somehow space has more going on with it than distance, area, and volume.  It holds its own quite well against matter and its energies.  It actually appears, invisibly, that Space causes Gravity to stratify it's attraction of all matter to all matter yielding magnetism, electricity, week/strong forces, and many others wave propagating observances including photons.  Since an object which is at rest tends to stay at rest, Space yields easily when the item is acted upon and allows that object to travel uninhibited to pass on it's received act upon the next object it encounters.  Then what in the world am I writing about?  It's about the incomplete transference of action.  These occur for a wide range of reasons, angle of incidence is probably the most illustrative, but what is the object and why won't it complete the transference is the trickier more interesting reasons.

In general when the momentum is significantly greater than the attraction of gravity between the two objects they will part and the angle of incident will determine the direction and transference of the objects.  What appears in Space to happen is the surface tension of the space contained within the objects verses the surface tension of the Space that exists around the two objects.  Physicists have been able to study various internal interactions with some degree of accuracy because it is known what the Relative relationship is with the exterior.  As a matter of fact a lot of effort and expense has been given and taken with these studies and large scale projects like cyclotrons are used in these efforts.  But what is lost?  A perspective of what happens universally.

Thus the noose of self acclaim tightens, choking out the spectacle of the beauty that surrounds and fills us that the world as matter is very little compared to Space.  So in collision the Space of the interiors of the two objects is condensed. If these are billiard balls the electrons are said to be projected as a wave harmonics of the protons deep within the space of the surface and the electrons repeal if there is not significant ionic attraction, nor surface 'friction' however in a pool hall an amount of the Spaces' vs. Gravity's reaction creates an audible sound.  Thus is energy released from the actual surface as Gravity is kept from combining the matter of the balls by Space.  The two subdivided by the Gravity of the matter of the objects and the Space of the objects action.  The wave effect of the audible sound is not a reaction of air being caught between the two objects, but radial transference of Gravity and Space acting on the matter of air suspended in Space and filled with Space eventual a Space and its opposing Gravity and matter absorbs the totality of the first act (it can be a combination of felt on the pool table walls players and such).

Peace,

Stephen A. Halkovic III

Time! Its Illusion and Distraction…

Good day,

I hope this is a wonderful new year for you all. It’s given me a chance to pause and reflect on the arbitrary definitions that we’ve given to time. There was a time when April first was the new years, and then it was changed and those who remembered the good old days were called April Fools. Needless to say the annual, month, week, day, hour, minute, second does have a relevance to seasons, reservation, taxes, and the like.

Atomic clocks, radioactive decay, again, the falling apart, destructions, but what about growth and prorogation? Even a Big Bang Theorist can recognize the difference in yield between a fission and fusion reaction. But when a slow ‘cold’ fusion reaction was suspected by three well known physicists conjectured in the mid-eighties that they might have stumbled across such a reaction during an experiment and other physicists weren’t able to duplicate the results the three were ‘black balled’ and the world physicist communities inability to process the information was ignored.

On the other hand what I find to be actually hilarious about these constructs that they’ve hatched up is C14 dating. The presumption of knowing and understanding distribution of C14, C13, and C12, is a true tribute to their own arrogance. Going back to First causes. No one was there so any theory based on a fixed beginning is flawed and not scientific.

I do concede to a range of radio-active decay models, but some of them a presumptuous to a fault and exclude a wide range of possible factors. Baring in mind with what I’ve elude to recognizing fundamental flaws of calculus there are ranges of usage, as with the ancient Greek’s assertion that constant force was needed to keep a body in motion (before Newton’s demonstration of gravity and its cause of friction/drag), when long ranges of time are examined the arbitrary assignment of a time frame incurs a wider range of error. As Einstein’s Relativity Theories indicate it is only a perception of differences in observation and not the literal physical characteristics of the incident.

For instance? If the rate of radioactive decay was constant then nuclear bombs, fission or fusion, would not be possible. There is extreme evidence that reality is well established. Furthermore a less critical demonstrations is evident in any nuclear reactor, with the added component of ‘control rods’ adding another factor that there are other factors which in short term small controlled specimens can be address and accommodated for. Like simple relativity a closed system can yield effective results, and even in General Relativity adding more variables, but still maintaining fixed constants. Although the Universe is not so easily swayed practical applications have obviously achieved.

Unfortunately when the US government was solicited by various scientists during the mid and late 1970’s to build an underground research laboratory for the study and experimentation of and with radioactive waste for the treatment of those and subsequent materials towards reducing and possible eliminating their radioactive properties the scientist were refused. Just one example from many extreme mistakes by politicians due to ignorance and misinformation perpetrated by those following the Big Bang Theory, and many more in the line of medicine, several because of beliefs held by the Evolutionists. It is astonishing how truly progressive programs have fallen to the wayside to satisfy delusions within the scientific community.

I’m really trying not to get into the departed former President Reagan’s disruption of alternative energy and ecological research to be siphoned into the ‘Star Wars” debacle. However it is important to stress the fundamental flaws of “Voodoo Economics”. Just because someone says it is so does not make it that way. There are a lot of Zombies out there and if you’re not careful they’ll ‘eat out your brains’ and have you pay them for it. It’s illegal to shot them in the head. Honestly they only use it for eating and satisfying other baser animalistic cravings but the law is the law. Violence begets more violence. Beware of the ‘Military Complex’ to paraphrase the departed US General and President ‘Ike’.

Peace,

Stephen A. Halkovic III

Cause and Effect... Super Spatial Interactions

Good day,

Happy New Yew to come!

 

Examining the idea of a fourth spatial dimension as cause and a three dimensional space with a fourth dimension of time as effect as opposed to the space/time four dimensions typically used by Big Bang Theorists and even Einstein's constructions yields an even stronger reconciliation of perceived data. I am inclined to concede that even a fifth dimension of space maybe viable. However beyond that it would seem that a larger variety of natural phenomena would have to be readily apparent.

Most of my conclusions have to do with the study of the nature of electrical current, not as the simple fluctuation of electrons, but as energy in all of its transformations. I took the wide range of particle and wave theories with their formulas and bombarded as much raw data as I could with them during the late 1970’s and early 1980’s so by the fall of 1983 I was acquainted enough to recognize that Einstein had fallen short on the application of his theories and relativity not necessarily because of not recognizing the concepts, but because of the bulk of mathematics that is required to straddle not only Newtonian and Quantized nuclear mechanics, but thermo-electro-harmonics of charged stratified gaseous and solid matter.

The first questions that came to mind that was not already answered came about when isolating a single particle/wave packet, weather it originated within the perceived phenomena, or traveled through the prescribed domain. The first subject of question that I quarried was: “Is there something that can travel faster than the speed of light?” Of course there is a particle that travels faster than light, since all of our experimental observational means are limited by ‘observance’ i.e. light is the ‘fastest’ medium through which we record data, then it is impossible for anything traveling ‘faster than light’ to be recorded. A catch ‘22’ since calibration cannot be achieved.

An example would be lightning and thunder. If you can only hear, i.e. you can’t see, you would never know that the light of the electrical discharge ever happened, and the distance from the strike to the observer would be measured the shock wave through the medium of the air. During the development of supersonic aircraft there were numerous problems that had to be overcome with the instrumentation to function properly when the craft achieved sonic velocity and higher.

Unlike the supersonic aircraft and ‘faster than light’, where the knowledge of light traveling faster than sound allowed for recalibration, the nature of ‘faster than light’ travel cannot be measured since we do not have a proper reference frame to measure it.

Neutrinos or their existence is calculable and has been for a long time. This was the first ‘particles’ or ‘wave packets’ that I gleaned, but of more importance if neutrinos exist then electrons have to travel at an even higher magnitudes of velocity. The ‘electron cloud’ or the quantized paradox of a single ‘body’ being more than one place in time indicate that ‘observation’ of ‘faster than light’ velocities create ‘optical’ illusions.

Why people think that ‘faster than light’ velocities are a violation of physics’ law or Einstein’s theories is purely a misunderstanding of what Relativity is eluding towards. These not construct of relative magnitudes, but the perception of various magnitudes of one reference frame and a different reference frame in order to reconcile the individual reference frames with each other. These reconciliations are the basis of the unification of fields (week, strong, electric, magnetic, and such).

What are the conditions of observation? That is the question Einstein and many others have been working on puzzling out. Although there was much I could perceive by recognizing a fourth dimensional space being disseminated into the popular 3-D space/time misrepresentation it was not until the summer/fall of 1985 that I was able to recognize the mistakes built into calculus that made Newton reluctant to publish and solve them.

It was tricky, and various modern arithmetic proofs done after Newton helped point the way of a solution and proof of a corrected version which was both arithmetic and geometric. Before actuating this new mathematical procedure, along with the strike accounting of physics of subatomic to astrological, I ran various calculations of certain proposed high profile facilities.

Unfortunately when these calculations were made along the lines of the prevalent ideas of the Big Bang Theorists the more accurate mathematics led to catastrophic results. In order to maintain a clear conscious I destroyed any and all related research notes, calculations, proofs, conclusions, and all. I am in no means trying to re-render these findings. I merely hope that these writing will yield to more clear minded thinking and a higher standard of social responsibility to future scientists.

Peace,

Stephen A. Halkovic III