Q: If science is really so far off course, why isn't this struggling science more obvious and how has it been applied so successfully for centuries?
A: Our scientific struggles have been demonstrated for centuries. Newton provided a compelling proposal of an attracting gravitational force emanating from all matter, along with a mathematical model for it, but he never scientifically explained his force (its power source or how and why attracts), and his mathematical model itself is never directly used. When pushed for explanation, Newton essentially said his attracting force was just one of God's mysteries, and his gravitational equation is not used directly – scenarios such as orbits, falling objects and spacecraft actually use the equations of Galileo, Kepler and others, in practice. Then, two centuries after it was thought Newton had solidly explained gravity, Einstein felt science clearly needed an entirely different physical theory of gravity – warped "space-time", but this theory also suffers from serious problems and complications, as detailed in The Final Theory, leaving two disparate and troubled physical explanations for gravity in our science. Our top scientists are also still struggling to physically and theoretically relate gravity with the other theories and forces in our science. So, even the common everday experience of gravity poses a long and ongoing struggle for our science.
And now, cosmologists claim today's entire understanding of matter itself is merely a side note, apparently far overshadowed by an unseen 90% of matter in our universe – "Dark Matter" – presumed to exist and to be completely unlike matter as we know it. Cosmologists further claim both energy and its time-honored conservation laws are also side notes in a universe apparently inexplicably accelerated apart ever faster by far more mysterious "Dark Energy" than even the proposed "Dark Matter" (currently claiming the universe is at least 70% "Dark Energy", 25% "Dark Matter", and less than 5% familiar matter and energy). Disagreement and puzzlement abound, with nearly everything open to question, increasingly fantastical theories, and little that is solidly agreed upon (see the Science Articles page for just a taste of this state of affairs as reported in our mainstream science media itself).
Despite our scientific struggles, we have achieved much, though often via serendipitous discovery, trial-and-error, empirical observation, educated guesswork and continually changing abstract models and working theories, all of which have helped guide our efforts, but which clearly do not represent a solid understanding of our universe and how it operates.
→ However The Final Theory provides this understanding for the first time, correcting error after error in our science as the chapters proceed.
Q: But couldn't this just be the process of scientific progress? After all, science authorities and the educated public seem to feel our science is basically sound and on track.
A: First, our educational systems are presumed to have the correct answers, and only pass students who dutifully incorporate them into their understanding and belief system. Teachers follow their assigned curriculum and textbook material, professors are deeply steeped in this system and do not question that which they firmly believe and profess, and corporations and higher educational institutes select graduates and employees for their knowledge and application of this material. There is little opportunity, incentive or point in questioning or deviating from this path.
Second, human logic and reason often falls prey to psychological traps known as logical fallacies. There are dozens of widely recognized formal logical fallacies, such as "red herring" diversions, erroneous "two wrongs make a right" justifications, etc. In the past century, for example, many highly questionable scientific claims (warped space-time, higher dimensions, time dilation, parallel universes, time travel, quantum strangeness, dark matter, dark energy, etc.) have been accepted almost without question when associated with Einstein or other highly revered scientists. Often this powerful "appeal to authority" logical fallacy alone compels thousands to accept claims that would otherwise be taken with a very large grain of salt. And once thousands of educated, thinking individuals are erroneously thought to have put such claims through rigorous scientific scrutiny, the further powerful "appeal to consensus" logical fallacy lulls many more into going along with the crowd, eventually turning these claims into the scientific status-quo. Yet even the handful of experts making the original claim are often far too steeped in today's beliefs to see how little solid scientific merit their claims actually have. And the editors of scientific journals, who are responsible for evaluating such claims before presenting them to the scientific community and the public, are products of the very same educational and belief system, and are entrusted to support and defend it. So, on and on it goes. With this dynamic, a science that has run far off course on the wrong track without realizing it is also inherently incapable of recognizing its own flaws if these flaws are also in line with it on the same track.
→ The second edition of The Final Theory solidly identifies the logical fallacies behind many of our current theories and beliefs, clearing the way for a new understanding.
Q: If The Final Theory addresses all the errors and wrong turns in our science legacy, even providing many corrections and answers, shouldn't its publication solve all the problems and finally bring a new era of understanding?
A: Yes, but only if we break free of this vicious cycle. Again, students learn all the "correct" answers and are only rewarded for accepting them; graduates enter higher educational / corporate / scientific communities that only value and reward accepted knowledge; scientific journals pre-screen for only papers that support accepted knowledge from accredited institutions; and the popular science media report to the public from these journals and institutions. The public trusts this process to tell them how the world works and then supports taxpayer funding of related science projects, lobbied by today's science leaders. Meanwhile the next generation of students go through the same educational systems, enter the same higher educational and corporate systems, and follow the same popular science headlines, magazines and documentaries. This creates a very closed, insulated system highly resistant to change, let alone a revolution in understanding.
Complicating matters, there have been many well-intentioned but seriously misguided independent attempts at rethinking our science, greatly tarnishing the notion of a truly important original concept or theory that finally breaks the vicious cycle that our science is now trapped within. Breaking this cycle requires individuals who can stand back and see both its sizable successes and its glaring failures, allowing them to seriously consider the important claims made in The Final Theory.
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 withinin galaxies, and of galaxies though space. This has led to the further invention of exotic "Dark Matter", said to invisibly fill and dominate galaxies and inter-galactic space, rather than questioning Einstein’s theory and the often-repeated erroroneous claim that it has been verified to extreme accuracy. A theory cannot simultaneously fail on a grand scale and succeed in 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: Are there any simple definitive experiments that back up these claims of Newton and Einstein being wrong – about gravity for example?
A: Yes there are! Consider this drop test: Start with two objects of equal mass floating in space, connected by an elastic band. If one object is pulled along so that it continually accelerates at the same rate as it would fall on Earth, the elastic would stretch, and remain stretched, due to the inertial resistance of the second, equally massive object – an ongoing force equivalent to its weight on Earth. And it would make no difference if the second object were initially held while the elastic was stretched by the pulling force, then remained in constant tension, awaiting release. Once released, the first object would be allowed to accelerate through space, maintaining the same stretch in the elastic, for the same reason as earlier when the second object was not initially held. It also would make no difference if the accelerating force on the first object were also applied to the second object once it was released – this force would merely match the existing accelerating scenario, with the constant distance between the objects and the stretched elastic between them. It could not provide any additional acceleration or effect to close the distance between the objects and allow the elastic to relax.
Crucially, this is precisely the situation if the two objects are on Earth, with one held and the other suspended by a stretched elastic band. Once released, the gravitational force on the lower object now accelerates it through space, toward the ground, maintaining the stretch in the elastic due to the inertial resistance of the equally massive upper object that is being accelerated along with it. And, as before, the fact that the same gravitational force is on the upper object is of no consequence, only matching but not exceeding this existing accelerating scenario, leaving the objects to fall with a constant distance and a stretched elastic between them.
But this is not what happens! The elastic actually contracts during the fall, pulling the objects together. Yet, as explained above, this should not occur according to either Newton’s gravitational force or Einstein’s “warped space-time”. This simple experiment seriously challenges both Newton and Einstein, according to the Scientific Method where even a single negative result disproves any theory.
→ Not only does this simple experiment definitively disprove both Newton and Einstein, but it gives precisely the result that must occur according to the new explanation of gravity introduced in Chapter 2!
Q: OK, scientists may still be struggling to 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 either 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, finally resolving this great mystery in our science.
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.
→ More details on Black Holes in Chapter 6.
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:
2) The Work formula:
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.
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 textbook 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 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 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."
→ These mysteries and law violations are 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 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.
→ This mystery is solved in Chapter 4 via the 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 artificially re-introduced
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 claimed it is, why is there apparently so much experimental support?
A: Examine the support for yourself and you will see it 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 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 for yourself!
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 away from the astronaut instead, making the astronaut the elder one 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 allow others do so, but as soon as the obvious fatal flaw above is pointed out they will immediately retract this example, 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 admit that this accelerated scenario actually puts it in the realm of General Relativity, not Special Relativity, reassuring us that this actually does now verify the 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, as evidence for the bizarre truths of this theory, yet it is always retracted when challenged (and usually only if challenged).
The basis for the retraction is that a fatal logical flaw was demonstrated in the very concept of ‘time dilation’ in Special Relativity. This fatal flaw of one specific absolute outcome despite the core concept that "everything is relative" is nevertheless often claimed to have been experimentally verified in apparent support of Special Relativity. 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, yet such examples suffer from this same absolute/relative logic error that causes the "Twin Paradox" claim to be retracted. So the retraction of this famous Special Relativity "Twin Paradox" thought experiment, in favor of General Relativity instead, is no small detail, wiping out enormous theoretical and experimental claims of support for Special Relativity, in one fell swoop. Yet the immense implications of this fact are simply ignored as the focus is nonchalantly switched to General Relativity – a classic 'red herring' logical fallacy diversion.
Problem #3:Since the discussion usually ends with the claim that General Relativity solves the problem, there is often no burden of proof on the expert to back up even this claim. It usually suffices to reference this even less understood intimidating theory by our greatest known scientist, even if the ’expert’ may actually know very little 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 1g effect of gravity on Earth from that of accelerating through space at 1g. This is known as the Principle of Equivalence. So, even according to General Relativity, the astronaut could continually accelerate at the rate of 1g 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 (where there can be no absolute perspective) and General Relativity (where constant 1g acceleration is equivalent to standing still on Earth) – 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: The Twin Paradox example above is fairly esoteric and hypothetical. What about the widespread claims that our GPS satellite systems would fail without relativistic corrections?
A: These are actually unverified claims repeated by theorists with vested interests in propagating this belief. The US Dept. of Defense, for example, manually updates GPS satellite times daily. These updates factor in many theoretical and practical adjustments, both large and small. When pure theory alone can't fully account for observations, as is generally the case in real-world scenarios, practical models are created then adjusted with various "correction factors" to better match real-world conditions, and these "correction factors" are then applied. Such empirical correction factors must be adjusted and fine-tuned however may be necessary to achieve the best agreement and modeling of observations, regardless of whether or not any tiny theoretical calculations are part of this picture.
The claims that our GPS systems would not function properly without relativistic corrections, often repeated by Special Relativity theorists and enthusiasts, are based on purely theoretical calculations and claims that have never actually been verified in our GPS systems since they are far overshadowed by much larger real-world issues that satellites encounter while speeding in orbit about a planet, requiring sizable regular overriding manual adjustments. Even if the relativistic adjustments were proven to be unnecessary and counter-productive, their negative effect would be inconsequential considering the daily empirical modeling, fine tuning and adjusting
So, technically speaking, are relativistic adjustments present in GPS satellite systems, as claimed? Yes. Are the tiny, purely theoretical calculations of their presumed effect of any consequence in the practical real-world environment of satellite orbits and continual overriding adjustments? No. Could it even be incorrect and counter-productive to include them? Yes – it would make no practical difference either way given the much larger empirical fine-tuning and overriding adjustments. Are the claims from relativity theorists – that relativistic corrections are verified to be required and even critical to GPS systems – true, in view of all other overriding daily correction factors and optimizations? Absolutely not.
→ Even further debunking of this widespread myth is provided in Chapter 5.
Q: Are there really serious 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". But there are many serious problems with this notion (neither empty space nor proposed "space-time" are physically anything like a 2-D rubber sheet – a 'false analogy' logical fallacy; gravity must mysteriously pre-exist to pull the sphere downward to create the warping that is said to cause gravity in the first place; what does it even mean to pull the sphere "down" into the "2-D sheet" once this simplified 2-D analogy is properly 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 of absolute references. 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 involves absolutes that completely undo its very reason for existence (much as it was shown earlier that the "everything is relative" creedo of Special Relativity completely undoes claims of experimental verification that rely on specific absolute perspectives). 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 heights over the years that to sincerely point out even such clear flaws in plain view is often considered unthinkable heresy today. 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 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.
→ The true nature of electricity & magnetism 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.
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: What about atomic clocks flown on jets, which seem to show Einstein's Time Dilation Effect?
Q: Einstein and Relativity wrong? It can't be! What about another famous thought experiment with a bouncing light beam on a passing spaceship. This is used all the time to explain and justify Special Relativity, and seems reasonable and accepted by both experts and the public alike. Are you saying that is wrong too?
A: Yes. Consider two situations:
A) a rubber ball set bouncing up and down on a cart that is rolling across a room, and
B) a second ball tossed to bounce across the room beside the cart.
Even though both balls may follow similar paths across the room, they are not in the same physical situation. Ball "B" had to be tossed faster and on a different, diagonal trajectory, compared to ball "A", which was just dropped straight down on the rolling cart. It is no paradox that ball "A" managed to travel the same elongated bouncing path across the room as ball "B", and in the same amount of time, despite being bounced at a slower speed. The distance ball "A" travels straight up and down between contacts with the floor of the cart is much less than the distance ball "B" travels on its diagonal path between contacts with the floor of the room. Both balls are doing precisely what they should be doing according to simple mechanics, bouncing with different speeds and trajectories in their different physical frames of reference, while traveling similar paths across the overall reference frame of the room. No special physics or theory needs to be developed to resolve any "paradox".
And likewise with a beam of light bouncing straight up and down on a passing spaceship, the light beam merely bounces the expected distance between floor and ceiling of the spaceship in the expected time, at the speed of light. The fact that the light beam also follows an elongated diagonal bouncing path, from an outside observer's perspective as the spaceship passes by, does not mean the light beam simultaneously bounced along in the outside observer's physical reference frame on a far longer path but in the same period of time, exceeding the speed of light. To say this is to make the elementary error of confusing two completely different physical situations and reference frames, creating an apparent paradox where none exists. A light beam that was actually directed in such an elongated diagonally bouncing path across the observer's external frame of reference would, of course, take more time to physically travel this longer path unaided by a speeding spaceship, and would not keep up with the spaceship and its bouncing light beam on board.
Yet this is precisely the error Einstein made in his famous "bouncing light beam" thought experiment, repeated daily, uncorrected, in science lectures, textbooks and documentaries around the world – and from which the very core mathematics of Einstein's Special Relativity equations are derived. Yes, that's right .. the origin of Einstein's entire Special Relativity theory and mathematics can be traced to this very thought experiment and elementary reference-frame confusion. But Einstein's theories are one of the main pillars of today's science, educational systems and widespread popular beliefs, supported by all scientists educated in our system, and it is considered an act of ignorance or arrogance approaching heresy to question Einstein now. So science continues to veer far off track, taking all of us along with it, decade after decade, and soon to be century after century if this situation is not righted.
→ See Chapter 5 for more detail on this and many other fatal errors at the heart of today's relativity beliefs.
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 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".
→ Try your own hand at this or turn to 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 transmitted within a medium of air molecules, while light is considered to be an odd form of pure energy full of "quantum-mechanical" mysteries and paradoxes, and with no transmission medium at all. 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 one 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: It is often stated that Quantum Mechanics is one of the most accurate and elegant theories in science. Is this correct?
A: Since we have clearly been struggling to understand much in the world around us, we have had little 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 if we are resourceful enough to invent explanations, even if they are openly admitted to be filled with mysteries and paradoxes, but we have mistaken these models for reality. Quantum Mechanics is merely a very bizarre, mysterious, imaginative mathematical model that has undergone tremendous work by generations of scientists straining to produce experimental validation. Any failures to validate this highly favored and heavily invested theory are merely dismissed as failures by the researchers, while any appearance of agreement, no matter how artificially contrived the experiment may be, are widely published as confirmation. As a result, our science retains quantum theory that 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 in "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 conceptual foundations."
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.
→ 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.
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.
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 iinterference, 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".
p = E/c — momentum of light, p, equals its energy content divided by its speed
For starters, consider that the classic kinetic energy equation, K.E. = ˝mv2, 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 = ˝mc2. 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 = 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 unnecessary invention.
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.
In other words, instead of the usual requirement of using an actual physical experiment to produce the missing constant, the physical experiment was completely replaced by a description of it according to the new theory, producing the same result as the real-world experiment. This demonstrates that the new theory solidly captures the nature and essence of our actual physical world, even functioning as a replacement for it in generating a known physical constant of nature.
→ 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. Independent alternate science theories have a very tarnished, and often well deserved, reputation. Many people know something is very wrong with our science – so much so that they have tried 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. The Final Theory has arrived amidst this environment, making it difficult for the scientific community or the press to give it due consideration, while large publishing houses understandably dismiss all such books sight-unseen. As a result, it has not yet had an official book launch with the full promotional and marketing campaign typical of new releases from large publishing houses. Instead, it is in continual slow release until enough readers discover and discuss it to raise awareness to the level of other officially launched titles.
The Final Theory isn't widely distributed in bookstores at the moment since it is published by a Print-On-Demand publisher, which only print and ship copies as they are ordered. Although there are now many reputable P.O.D. publishers, such as the book's Florida-based Universal Publishers, which produce books whose quality and appearance are identical to those on the shelves, most book reviewers and columnists are still not accustomed to this method and will not consider P.O.D. titles for review.
Due to these realities, The Final Theory is far less likely to 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 website was created to give as much information as possible to potential readers, considering that it is generally not possible to physically flip through the book before purchasing. Although The Final Theory has been featured in a number of influential newspapers, magazines and radio programs, it hasn't become headline news .. yet. Everything needs a beginning, even the Theory Of Everything, and this is your opportunity to be part of it.
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, simple, 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 and many premature misunderstandings will arise. This can easily be demonstrated by Internet searches that produce all manner of misconceptions and premature conclusions about the book from people reacting solely to its promotional material or snippets of information gathered at random, but who ultimately admit to not actually having read the book itself. This simply does a serious disservice to the book and to the public who do not realize the uninformed nature of these comments and are misled into missing out on the tremendously important opportunity to read the book.
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, questions and misunderstandings otherwise, which could only be properly addressed by .. well, writing a book! 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!