Should not intelligent, reasonable men of good
will be able to agree on all things that matter?
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to
one who is striking at the root." -
Henry David Thoreau
and other features
Aspects of Jesus
5 Gospels Canon
Philosophers of Note
Golden Age Themes
Misc Ancient Myth Material
1994 Velikovsky Symposium
Book Critiques Links
Misc Biology Links
Poetry & Fun Material
PDF Download Files
Lecture & Video Links
Site Features Links
Site article checklist
Spiritual Products online store
It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make
sense." - Mark Twain
(Twain's sarcasm actually implies the opposite)
Theory of Everything explains NOTHING
[Commentary] The following text was sent
for consideration. It is a prime demonstration of intelligence, initiative,
creativity, education and imagination bereft of intellectual responsibility.
It speaks to the global lack of attention to and lack of both agreement on
metaphysical principles and rigorous word definitions in our educational
systems. Thus the door is opened to develop a genre of thinkers untethered
by the real world in which we live.
I am emailing you in my continued search for intelligent thinkers able to
think outside the box of 1 dimensional time and academic protocols.
[Commentary] As per usual, a foundational
fallacy is introduced up front, in this case the prevalent thinking that
"time" is a dimension. On this misguided concept hangs most of the balance
of nonsense introduced to us.
The double slit experiment has been solved (with evidence of the time
dynamics in the real time videos showing time and matter have an inverse
relationship in 3 dimensions) and with it was unlocked the unified field
theory. However it seems it is as far ahead in thinking (or farther) than
Special Relativity was to many of Einstein's contemporaries. I solved it
with a simple epiphany without being educated in standard academic
institutions so I am still learning how to express the deeper details in
mathematics while the theory is perfectly easily understood in English, so
everyone who doesn't get it immediately seems to dismiss it and move on.
While the logic is simple, like SR it perhaps does take a little bit of
thinking which it seems to me is in short supply.
Perhaps you can grasp it, two things to be aware of which people seem not to
realise but may help,
[Commentary] Like so many of these wannabe
science iconoclasts, this "theorist" seems to have no humility, never
doubting the infallibility of his own musings. He seemingly finds adequate
justification for his concepts in their just being different from what is
accepted. This is such a simplistic and groundless violation of
intellectual responsibility and basic logic.
What is correct should never be assumed to be so just because it is
different from what is wrong. If 2+2 = 5 is wron, does that make 2+2 = 6
1. matter like time always moves forward it only appears to slow down, stop
or go backwards relative to other objects. We move forward around the sun
which moves forward around SAG-A, which moves forward around the Virgo
supercluster. So the actual speed we move through the spacetime fabric is
beyond our current understanding. We can assume it is phenomenal
[Commentary] Here is the introduction of another nonsensical idea,
that "forward" can be defined without referents, and that all change in
movement of matter are illusions, something that is a fundamental denial of
our experience of reality.
2. Space as we know is not truly empty, the reality unlocked shows that
spacetime is a physical fabric or lattice and waves of energy move THROUGH
the internal strands. If matter like time ever stopped moving forward it
would cease to exist. Matter is vortexes of energy caught in and relayed
along the spacetime field particles which exist at every intersection.
[Commentary] "Space" (not volume) is a
mathematical projection of three dimension coordinates out to infinity, and
"time" is composed of the sequence of events. How can you legitimately make
a "physical fabric" out of combining those two? This is unmitigated
The measurement problem has been elusive because everyone assumed time is
one dimensional and were looking for the answer in the physics. However
knowing the evidence shows it is 3 dimensional time leads to understanding
that the answer is not to found by analysing the physics it is in analysing
the time, it is simply due to focus on different viewpoints in time.
[Commentary] "Time" is not related to nor
affected by spatial dimensions, and "3 dimensional time" is just and only a
nonsensical word construction.