Article 4. TALK ABOUT MOVING: IT’S A STORY AND IT’S ABOUT TIME, “Ready Set GO!” All the Time; Article 5. KEEP BUSTIN’ EINSTEIN: The Creator’s ADL Backbones Do Not Bend Over for Creation, So Matter Can Neither Tell Space to Curve Nor Turn the Hands of Time!
INTRODUCTION to Article 4 and Article 5. The Tortoise and the Hare
Zeno: DO YOU HAVE A MENTAL PROBLEM?
In other words, does your thinking about motion make it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for motion to occur?
Zeno’s “Achilles” Paradox asks: “If you can always divide distance into smaller increments, then if a slow-moving tortoise gets a head-start, how can a swifter runner like Achilles [the hare] catch the tortoise, since the distance between them can be infinitely subdivided, and therefore Achilles would have to make an infinite number of steps to catch the tortoise?”
And even more to the point the larger question Zeno forces us to ask is this:
“How is MOVEMENT even possible in the first place if you can always divide distance into smaller increments?”
That is Zeno’s INFINITE DIVISIBILITY PARADOX called the “Dichotomy.”
Wikipedia begins the discussion of the “Dichotomy” with a quote from Aristotle:
“That which is in locomotion must arrive at the half-way stage before it arrives at the goal.”
Then Wikipedia further explains:
“Suppose Atalanta wishes to walk to the end of a path. Before she can get there, she must get halfway there. Before she can get halfway there, she must get a quarter of the way there. Before traveling a quarter, she must travel one-eighth; before an eighth, one-sixteenth; and so on….This description requires [Atalanta] to complete an infinite number of tasks, which Zeno maintains is an impossibility. This sequence also presents a second problem in that it contains no first distance to [walk], for any possible (finite) first distance could be divided in half, and hence would not be first after all. Hence, the trip cannot even begin. The paradoxical conclusion then would be that travel over any finite distance can neither be completed nor begun, and so all motion must be an illusion.”
THE MORAL OF EVERY MOTION STORY IS SIMPLE:
We cannot replace a part of physical Reality with “thoughts” and then write-up a THEORY OF MOTION in which THINKING ABOUT MOTION—“math,” which is “thought”—is the cause of PHYSICAL MOVEMENT.
ZENO PROVED that it’s IMPOSSIBLE to cause motion by “thinking about motion”—all you get when you try to move by “doing math” is THE INFINITE DIVISIBILITY PARADOX—so therefore your theory of motion is per se INVALID if it doesn’t state a logically-valid FIRST PHYSICAL CAUSE of motion.
SPOILER ALERT: The only way to state a logically-valid FIRST PHYSICAL CAUSE of motion is if MOTION OR ATTEMPTED MOTION IS CONSTANT, because if motion is constant, then travel over a finite distance doesn’t have to BEGIN.
But it’s NOT SUFFICIENT to say that!
It’s not even sufficient to say: “Motion is Jesus!”
That’s like saying: “Motion is magic!”
There is A PHYSICAL EXPLANATION FOR EVERY MAGIC TRICK, and that PHYSICAL EXPLANATION is what is RELEVANT in science.
And here’s the thing: The as-yet UNSOLVED SCIENTIFIC PROBLEM of EXPLAINING *EXACTLY* WHY objects in motion stay in motion without external force pushing or pulling on them has been recognized since the days of Aristotle!
Zeno: [*in my imagination, speaking to Galileo and Newton*] Nice try at STATING A VALID THEORY OF MOTION, but THAT’S ANOTHER FAIL, because Newton’s First Law of Motion—which “codified” Galileo’s concept of inertia—does not REFUTE Aristotle’s conclusion by EXPLAINING WHY it’s unnecessary for an external force to act-on an object to keep it moving!
Seriously think about that SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS TIMELINE: For over 2,350 YEARS scientists have been trying to EXPLAIN WHY objects in motion stay in motion, but TO THIS DAY not one scientist in the world has refuted Aristotle’s conclusion and EXPLAINED WHY it’s unnecessary for an external force to act-on an object to keep it moving.
Zero progress in 2,350+ years!
Think about it some more: Newton’s First Law of Motion (and Galileo’s concept of inertia) IS AN ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF WHAT HAPPENS IRL—objects in motion stay in motion in the absence of external forces—but A MERE DESCRIPTION OF MOVEMENT WITHOUT AN EXPLANATION is *NOT A THEORY OF MOTION*, it is like “NAMING NUTS,” i.e., MERE OBSERVATION and NAMING OBSERVED THINGS AND PHENOMENA.
So THAT’S THE PROBLEM—explaining WHY objects in motion stay in motion without an external force pushing or pulling on them, as Aristotle was certain should be a pre-requisite—THAT MUST BE SOLVED before it’s possible to have a VALID THEORY OF MOTION.
Ergo, because THAT PROBLEM of EXPLAINING WHY objects in motion stay in motion without an external force acting-on them has NEVER BEEN SOLVED BEFORE, there has NEVER BEEN A VALID THEORY OF MOTION.
Article 5 is all about examining the major broken parts of the old theories of motion.
But before getting bogged down in the DELICIOUS IRONY of the unfixable past, we’re going to take a peek at a workable future in Article 4, which outlines the salient aspects of a new theory of motion that busts Zeno’s Paradox.
ARTICLE 4. THE THEORY OF MOTION IN THE TOEWC: READY SET GO! ALL THE TIME
Article 4, Chapter 1. The #1 Physics Issue In Reality: The Non-Existent Beginning of Mass, The Wave-Particle Duality Theory of Perpetual Motion
In the TOEWC, the theory of motion is that motion or attempted motion is constant because the Eternal Nature of each particle in a Snowman of God is to express *internal* WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY.
But THERE IS NO UNCERTAINTY ABOUT A PARTICLE’S SPEED OR POSITION, because PARTICLES DO NOT TRAVEL LIKE WAVES, they travel like massive objects.
What WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY means is that a particle is constantly expressing *internal* physical force (aka particle-force) and equal-magnitude-but-opposite-direction non-physical wave-energy with reference to a direction line (the fixed direction lines of Eternal particles within Snowmen of God are called Absolute Direction Lines, or “ADLs”; see Article 3.)
We’ve got to unpack more of the story of Wave-Particle Duality, which we’ll do below, but even now we can FEEL THE FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE of Wave-Particle Duality in every beat of our heart, and it’s also simple concept to think about: “[K]eep bumping,” “Hurry Hurry.”
WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY *BUSTS ZENO’S PARADOX* by constantly making the experience and application of *internal* particle-force happen.
Do we really need a thought-project on that?
Is anyone seriously suggesting that “something” can just “sit there” and “do nothing”?
Let’s contrast *INTERNAL* WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY with the *EXTERNAL* PHYSICAL FORCE that we deduce that a 3-d sub-atomic particle (“SAP”) would experience.
We know (see Article 1 and Article 3) that every 3-d SAP had to be CREATED from a Lumeyne (somehow, but we aren’t prepared yet to say how), and must at all times be the recipient of EXTERNAL PHYSICAL FORCE from all three of the Eternal particles (the Lumeyne, the Gravityne, and the Timeyne) in one specific Snowman of God, which (the three Eternal particles in a specific Snowman of God) are constantly expressing *internal* Wave-Particle Duality.
QUESTION: Does this mean that ARISTOTLE WAS CORRECT TO CONCLUDE that in the absence of external force, an object (a 3-d SAP let’s say, because that’s as much “matter” as we can speak about) would stop moving?
ANSWER: NO, and the issue is that ARISTOTLE WAS INCORRECT TO CONCLUDE that the “natural” state of a 3-d SAP is REST.
To repeat: The “natural” state of Eternal particles is *internal* Wave-Particle Duality, and the “natural” state of a CREATED 3-d SAP is that there are THREE HIGHER-DIMENSION ETERNAL PARTICLE-FORCES in a Snowman of God acting-on a SAP, so therefore A SAP will naturally experience UNBALANCED FORCE, aka NON-ZERO NET FORCE; in other words, A SAP MUST BE STOPPED BY ANOTHER SAP or else it will haul mass.
In reality, the only reason that a 3-d SAP is ever at-rest is because the external forces acting-on the SAP are BALANCED—when the external forces acting-on the SAP are BALANCED, then the NET FORCE experienced by the SAP is ZERO—which informs us that there must be ANOTHER SAP applying external force to the at-rest SAP.
So even before we know exactly how a SAP is created from a Lumeyne, we can PREPARE FOR LIFT-OFF—get ready to explain the Big Bang and matter’s formation—with some known Truths we have so far deduced.
Article 4, Chapter 2. UNPACKING The #1 Physics Issue In Reality: The Non-Existent Beginning of Mass, The Wave-Particle Duality Theory of Perpetual Motion, from (A) to (J)
(A) think about an Eternal particle of God having its FIRST *EXPERIENCE* of physical force, which was NOT CREATED, it “just was,” so it’s *not really* a Beginning, but we’ve got to start our thought-experiment there;
and then
(B) HOLD THAT THOUGHT when you’ve caught it with your mind;
and
(C) think about how your mind HOLDING that thought is the same as the particle CONTAINING that FIRST *EXPERIENCE* of physical force;
and
(D) NOTICE that you have just CREATED a great definition of PARTICLE MASS, to wit: “What a particle CONTAINS upon the FIRST *EXPERIENCE* of physical force”;
now
(E) think-about the particle *applying* the physical force of MASS that it CONTAINS and is *EXPERIENCING*;
and then
(F) ask: “IN WHICH DIRECTION is the particle *APPLYING* the physical force of MASS that it CONTAINS and is *EXPERIENCING*?”
and
(G) pick any direction on a SPHERICAL COMPASS, and imagine the particle *applying* the physical force of MASS that it CONTAINS and is *EXPERIENCING* by SHOOTING THE MASS IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION as A WAVE OF ENERGY (“wave-energy”) to get THRUST for THE PARTICLE ITSELF in the direction of your choice;
and
(H) now you have CREATED Wave-Particle Duality, and it was as easy as 1, 2, 3!
Check it out:
(1) THE WAVE OF ENERGY (the “wave-energy”) is the MASS that the particle CONTAINS that is being SHOT OUT OF THE PARTICLE to get THRUST for THE PARTICLE ITSELF;
and
(2) the particle is itself MOVING in the opposite direction of the THRUST and *APPLYING* the physical force of the MASS that was FIRST *EXPERIENCED* by the particle;
so
(3) that is how the particle’s *EXPERIENCE* of the physical force of mass CAUSES the particle’s *APPLICATION* of the physical force of mass by CAUSING “Wave-Particle Duality”!
But then unfortunately
(I) the particle will get stuck in Zeno’s Infinite Divisibility Paradox unless it has the *EXPERIENCE* of getting FILLED-UP WITH *NEW MASS* that it CONTAINS at the same time as THE *FIRST* MASS (the *OLD MASS*) is being THRUST out of the particle as the WAVE-ENERGY;
so then
(J) TO REPEAT what is happening to the particle during (I)—getting FILLED-UP WITH *NEW MASS*—in terms of *EXPERIENCED* physical force and *APPLIED* physical force:
The particle is *EXPERIENCING* THE PHYSICAL FORCE OF THE *NEW MASS* that it *CONTAINS* at the exact same time as the particle is “EXPRESSING” WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY by *APPLYING* THE PHYSICAL FORCE OF THE *OLD MASS* in one direction as the *OLD MASS* is being THRUST out of the particle as WAVE-ENERGY in the opposite direction.
Voila! That’s as far as we need to think for now, because we’ve shown how it would be *possible* for the Law of Conservation of Energy to automatically be satisfied in each Snowman of God, to wit: WAVE-ENERGY RECYCLING; there are three Eternal particles in different dimensions that are each constantly expressing WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY (and in addition, the Gravityne and the Timeyne are constantly *applying* PHYSICAL FORCE to the Lumeyne), which could in theory guarantee that as the *OLD MASS* is being THRUST out of a particle as WAVE-ENERGY, the particle would simultaneously be FILLED-UP with *NEW MASS* coming-from another particle.
QUESTION: But perpetual motion is supposedly impossible, so what gives?
ANSWER: THE NON-EXISTENT BEGINNING OF MASS—whatever mass is required to OPERATE ONE SNOWMEN OF GOD times the total number of Snowmen of God—IS WHAT “GIVES”! In Article 6–when we enable the “WAKING THE SLEEPING GIANT Big Bang Theory”—we deduce the specific conditions that enable the perpetual operation of one Snowman of God, but the point I want to make here is that what we’re contemplating is akin to ONE PARTICLE SIMULTANEOUSLY EATING AND WORKING AND POOPING—
and that means doing two things simultaneously: (1) EXPERIENCING NEW MASS; and (2) EXPRESSING WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY (by APPLYING THE PHYSICAL FORCE OF OLD MASS in one direction as THE OLD MASS IS THRUST OUT AS WAVE-ENERGY in the opposite direction)—
which requires TWO PRE-EXISTING “WORKING” UNITS OF MASS per particle, NOT ONE UNIT OF MASS, even though at any given “snapshot” of time, each particle will only *contain* one unit of mass.
And that’s PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE because we know that there wasn’t any “START-UP” of God—God is Eternal (see Article 1), so there was NO BEGINNING OF MASS—which means that there could never be any REST (no ending of motion), so therefore Zeno’s Infinite Divisibility Paradox can’t “attach” to this theory and prevent motion!
To repeat the busting of Zeno’s Paradox: A PARTICLE’S *INTERNAL* EXPERIENCE OF MASS (which has no Beginning, it’s Eternal) CAUSES THE PARTICLE TO EXPRESS WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY, and PERPETUAL *INTERNAL* FORCE = PERPETUAL MOVEMENT, NO EXTERNAL FORCE REQUIRED, and therefore there can be NO WORRY about how much DISTANCE to travel *in response* to an APPLIED (EXTERNAL) FORCE, since motion (distance) never starts and never ends, i.e., it is INFINITE. Time (discussed below in Article 5, Chapter 2 and Chapter 3), which tik-toks at the speed of light on the Universal Clock, synchronizes motion, constantly and automatically “dividing” infinite distance into finite fixed-duration intervals.
On the other hand, IF THERE IS A THEORIZED BEGINNING OF MASS—if the “natural” state of matter is theorized to be REST—then A VALID THEORY OF MOTION CANNOT EXIST, because in that situation motion will keep “ENDING” and objects will keep getting “stuck at the starting line” needing to FIND AN *EXTERNALLY-SUPPLIED* REASON TO MOVE AGAIN, which means that theorists will be “thinking about moving” (FIGURING, aka “MATHING,” destinations, aka DISTANCES) every.time. an object needs to START MOVING, and that’s how THE THEORISTS WILL GET CAUGHT IN ZENO’S INFINITE DIVISIBILITY PARADOX, which will make object motion physically impossible, and thereby invalidate the entire theory of motion.
Article 4, Chapter 3. In Theory, You Had ONE JOB: Tell the Story of How Your Theory of Motion Created the Universe
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. Thank you very much.” —Carl Sagan
I agree with Carl Sagan that we can’t claim to know how to make an apple pie from scratch until we know why an apple falls from a tree, and we can’t know why an apple falls from a tree until we understand how the apple was made—how all bodies were made, actually—and got into place in 3-d space.
In other words, we can’t claim to know anything about Creation—let alone know how to adult as a humane being—until we can tell the Creation Story.
Article 4, Chapter 4. How to Construct Everything With the WAKING THE SLEEPING GIANT Big Bang Theory by Following the Tax-Paying Turtle Particle Theory of Physics (“TPTPTP”)
The Creation Story as told by the TOEWC is called the “WAKING THE SLEEPING GIANT Big Bang Theory,” which goes like this:
Once upon a time God was in bed, then he made a decision to turn his life around—
because his body is made of spinning Timeyne particles that are like Tippe Tops that he can tip over with a little 3-d Mindful Stretching—
but God knew he couldn’t do any stretching until he was ready to create the universe,
because after he tipped over his Tippe Top Timeyne body then the spinning Lumeyne particles in the lower dimension that he had been holding down by facing head-down would tip over too and be launched like rockets out of their own beds never to return,
but finally the day came when God finished planning everything to be 100 fair to everyone,
and he had to stop dreaming and get out of bed and begin creating,
which was surely a frightening and daunting moment-of-no-return for him,
like that is a lot of responsibility and there’s no room for error in all of forever and he never did any of it before it was all theoretical before that one fateful morning,
so now we know that he simply 5 4 3 2 1’d it,
then he just started doing the 3-d Mindful Stretching that was necessary to tip over his Tippe Top Timeyne body so that his head would be pointing up instead of down,
and BANG!
the light rockets (the Lumeyne particles) tipped over too,
and they were off to the races,
and by God 14 billion years later here we all are!
I have to defer the DETAILED discussion of The WAKING THE SLEEPING GIANT Big Bang Theory until Article 6, where I will also explain HOW AND WHEN NEWTON’S THIRD LAW OF MOTION MUST BE SATISFIED.
We have to know when and how Newton’s Third Law of Motion must be satisfied to guarantee that the Law of Conservation of Energy is Eternally satisfied PRIOR TO THE BIG BANG within a Snowman of God, as each particle in the Snowman perpetually expresses Wave-Particle Duality (as discussed in Chapters 1 and 2.)
I call the Laws of Physics that govern when and how Newton’s Third Law of Motion must be satisfied the “Tax-Paying Turtle Particle Theory of Physics” (“TPTPTP.”)
The TPTPTP has its own story, and it goes like this:
Man we live it up down here
we’ve got what we’ve got and we’re not getting upset
we don’t need beer or fishing hooks on our eco-friendly yachts
to do the Git Up down here
‘cuz particles are living in God’s Country
which is a totalitarian state with a 100% tax rate
where the only currency is wave-energy that can’t be created or destroyed
and the smallest things called particles are structured sort of like tax-paying turtles
but unlike turtles that come in many varieties
there are only three types of Eternal particles
and they are arranged into Snowmen of God having three particles each
so that one of each type of particle is found in each Snowman of God
but in the beginning before the Big Bang
all of the particles in all of the Snowmen were tipped upside-down
so it was like they were all asleep
then after the Big Bang when God stretched and turned over his Tippe Top Timeyne body
causing the Lumeynes to end their slumber and turn over too
the Lumeynes went flying up up and away from the Snowmen
and that’s when God CREATED the sub-atomic particles (SAPs) inside of the universe
from the lone Lumeynes that were flying like rockets
so that there is only one type of sub-atomic particle in each atom
not two or three or 17 or any other number.
It’s as if a particle has a hard shell on the outside and a soft inside that moves the shell around, and every turtle-particle has to pay two taxes in the form of wave-energy.
(i) The first tax is paid on the *experience* of the *internal* force of mass (let’s call the *experience* of *internal* mass “Fmass”), which is the “intertial” force that is constantly expressed as Wave-Particle Duality.
The first tax—the payment in wave-energy that is equivalent to the *internal* inertial force of mass, Fmass—is constantly generated in the opposite direction of the applied physical force as the particle expresses Wave-Particle Duality; in other words, the first tax is the wave-energy part of the expression of Wave-Particle duality.
It is actually the first tax—the wave-energy—being THRUST out of the particle that CAUSES the top, or head, of the particle to *apply physical force* in the opposite direction along the same line.
And it’s a Truism that a particle can’t go faster than the “energy of mass” (Fmass) of itself, so therefore the particle’s constant expression of its Wave-Particle Duality in opposite directions must leave it “idling,” not moving linearly.
But that’s not all!
A particle’s own inherent, Eternal force can *only* cause the particle to spin in place because a particle can’t *TAKE ITSELF* TO ANOTHER PLACE by ACTING-ON ITSELF!
That’s just common sense.
(ii) The second tax, which is the equal-and-opposite force that is generated to satisfy Newton’s Third Law of Motion in reaction to being acted-on with *external* physical force, is paid when Moving Services (*external* physical forces) are received from other turtle-particles (“Moving Service Providers”) to help a particle (a “Moving Service Recipient”) “get into gear” and haul mass in the same direction as the NET FORCE that the Moving Service Recipient is experiencing.
See “Tortoise Helps His Friend Who Got Turned Over”:
NOTE that the Wave-Particle Duality of individual sub-atomic particles (i.e., each SAP’s payment of the first tax in one direction and the application of physical force in the opposite direction upon experience of the *internal* inertial force of mass, Fmass) is NOT SHOWN in the above illustration, because Wave-Particle Duality must be ACCOUNTED-FOR as part of a particle’s NET FORCE EXPERIENCE.
It is actually the second tax—the wave-energy—being THRUST out of the Moving Service Recipient particle in the opposite direction as the Moving Service (*external* physical force) that CAUSES the top, or head, of the particle to *apply* the physical *force of movement*, and that’s why the Moving Service Recipient “gets into gear” and hauls mass in the same direction in which the Moving Service Provider is heading.
$64 Bazillion USD QUESTION: How is it possible for a Moving Service Provider to be A LIVING CREATURE? In other words, how is possible for A SENTIENT BEING to “mobilize” its own mass without external assistance from a Moving Service Provider???
BEFORE I GIVE MY FULL ANSWER TO THE QUESTION, remember that Aristotle was also preoccupied with trying to answer this question (see “On the Motion of Animals”), and also note that once again, we see that Aristotle “rested his case” on the concept of “rest,” concluding that it would be impossible for an animal to CHANGE ITS OWN DIRECTION unless at least *ONE POINT* WITHIN THE ANIMAL was AT REST, and that point would have to be “the origin” of the animal as a whole (that point is what I call “the SAP at the COM” of the animal.)
But the problem with Aristotle’s analysis is that ARISTOTLE WAS NOT ACCOUNTING-FOR THE IMMOVABLE ADL BACKBONES (see Article 3) OF SNOWMEN OF GOD, ALL OF WHICH ADL BACKBONES BEGIN AND END AT THE *SAME POINT* (let’s call it the “6-d Anchor Point”) IN THE 6-d COM OF THE JESUS/GOD THE FATHER PART OF GOD, which means that EVERY 3-d SAP in the universe—and that means every particle of every LIVING CREATURE on earth—begins and ends at the same AT-REST, IMMOVABLE 6-d Anchor Point, which is what ENABLES “self-mobilization” of an animal made-of SAPs without the *necessity* of the SAP at the COM of the animal being at rest inside of the universe.
Readers who CHANGE THE SUBJECT to “chemistry” or “muscles” or “neurons” or “cellular contractions” or “friction” OR ANYTHING ELSE to answer the question about animal self-mobilization are MISSING *THE POINT* entirely.
Think about it this way: You would FREAK OUT if you saw A ROCK ON THE GROUND GO FROM “JUST SITTING THERE” TO MOVING AROUND without experiencing any external force, but when you see sentient beings going to and fro and up and down on the earth all by themselves THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT YOU’RE SEEING, so you’ve got to try to solve the mystery of how that is possible.
NOW HERE’S THE REMAINDER OF MY ANSWER: The CAUSE of A LIVING CREATURE’S UNASSISTED FORCE OF MOVEMENT is THE SPIRIT, aka CONSCIOUSNESS, OF THE LIVING CREATURE, which is *in Ezekiel’s wheel*, as described in Article 1.
As discussed in Article 1 (which references Article 7, where we discover the literal mind-body connection), THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF A LIVING CREATURE IS CONTROLLING THE DIRECTION ON THE SPHERICAL PARTICLE COMPASS (the spherical particle compass is Ezekiel’s Wheel) IN WHICH THE SOUL PARTICLE (a Soul particle is a Lumeyne in the 4th dimension) is APPLYING PHYSICAL FORCE—and the Soul Particle, in turn, is controlling the direction in which the SAP at the COM of the living creature’s body is APPLYING PHYSICAL FORCE—and it’s a Truism that every body can only MOVE OR ATTEMPT TO MOVE IN ONE DIRECTION, and that ONE DIRECTION is *always* THE DIRECTION IN WHICH THE SAP AT THE COM OF THE BODY IS EXPERIENCING AND APPLYING NET FORCE.
This is why Aristotle falsely assumed that this one *origin point* in the animal’s body must be at-rest, to wit: Because the body-as-a-whole is necessarily RELATIVE-TO the ORIGIN POINT of the body; in fact, the body-as-a-whole must be “RIDING” ON TOP of the ORIGIN POINT of the body—the way Aristotle put it is that the animal is (and here I quote) “supporting itself upon” the origin point—which means that the origin point of the body and *all the other parts of the body* are in an Absolute-Relative relationship. And that means that THE ORIGIN POINT OF THE BODY CANNOT BE CONTROLLED BY ANY OF THE OTHER PARTS OF THE BODY! That’s SIMPLE COMMON SENSE from 350 B.C. that seems to have been forgotten by “modern science”! And again, what Artistotle NOTED is that the origin point can’t be BOTH (1) NATURALLY MOVING and (2) ALSO BE ABLE TO *MOVE ITSELF*. That’s 100 True IN THE ABSENCE OF A PHYSICAL CONNECTION TO A SNOWMAN OF GOD, and that’s what I’m saying that Aristotle was missing; Aristotle didn’t “see” the ONE-TO-ONE PHYSICAL CONNECTION between a specific Snowman of God and a specific SAP of an animal’s body.
Here’s the trick that explains why the origin point of a living creature doesn’t have to be at-rest: CONSCIOUSNESS IS LIKE A COMPUTER PROGRAM (a “Personal O/S” I’ve called it) WRITTEN BY GOD AND “INSTALLED” IN THE 6th DIMENSION OF A SNOWMAN OF GOD TO CONTROL the direction in which the Soul particle in the 4th dimension of the same Snowman is *applying* physical force (let’s call the direction in which the Soul particle is heading the “behavioral output” of the Soul particle), exactly like a CLOUD APP can be programmed to remotely control the output of an iPad or other device, so we could say that every living creature must have a “CONSCIOUSNESS APP,” or “CAPP” (aka the Personal O/S) installed in the segment of the 6-d COM that’s in the same Snowman of God as the Soul particle.
The operation of the human CAPP is discussed in Article 7, and the two different types of animal CAPPs and their operations are discussed in Article 8, but for now all we have to do is keep remembering that REST IS NOT THE “NATURAL” STATE of SAPs. A SAP is not simply “idling”; unless another SAP is bringing it to a STOP, a SAP is going to experience NON-ZERO NET FORCE AND GO in the direction of the NET FORCE because the SAP had to be CREATED from a Lumeyne somehow (the SAP at the COM of a living creature’s body had to be CREATED from the Soul particle), so the SAP must *always* be receiving Moving Services from THREE MOVING SERVICE PROVIDERS: the 4-d Lumeyne, the 5-d Gravityne and the 6-d Timeyne. So therefore the SAP at the COM of a living creature’s body WILL MOVE OR ATTEMPT TO MOVE in the direction selected by operation of the CAPP.
But obviously, GOD CAN VETO ANY MOTION OR ATTEMPTED MOTION, and GOD CAN ALSO CAUSE AN ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO BE PERFORMED—without even interfering with Free Will or any “sensory inputs” to the CAPP; so in other words, Free Will and any “sensory inputs” to the CAPP *ARE FREE TO DISAGREE* with Justice, but *NOT FREE TO MOVE AGAINST* Justice—because the behavioral output of every Soul particle of every living creature *must be* PHYSICALLY ENABLED (“APPROVED”) by the 6-d Timeyne particle in the same Snowman of God (the reason why is because the 6-d Timeyne particle is setting directly on top of the 6-d Anchor Point), AND THE REST OF THE BODY MUST PERFORM ACCORDING TO THE CAPP’S INSTRUCTIONS, too, so therefore Jesus/God the Father naturally has “the first and the last say” about what every body does.
7 days laaater….it *finally occurred to me* that *maybe* it’s not a coincidence that Ezekiel’s Wheel is overturning 2,350+ years of motion theory at the exact same time as GOD’S PEOPLE (that’s every person) in every nation in the world are witnessing the terrifying specter of genocidal terrorists calling themselves “world leaders” competing with each other in the name of God to gain control over GOD’S PEOPLE?
The Book of Ezekiel isn’t a feel-good text, it’s THE LITERAL APOCALYPSE for God’s sake!
And I say “for God’s sake” literally, too, because (as discussed in Article 1), IMMORTAL GOD ALMIGHTY HAS BEEN A PERSON ON EARTH SINCE JUNE 7, 1958, and will be here forevermore, but on April 21, 2016, He was falsely declared to be dead in the USA by fraudulent legal records that were made by THE STATE OF MINNESOTA and APPROVED BY THE FBI, aka the Federal Government of the USA.
The United States says it wants a world with oil and gas flowing freely, and I say that I want a world in which God is living freely and not falsely declared to be dead by the United States.
But according to the lyrics of “Still Would Stand All Time,” the United States un-deading God and God assuming leadership is not the preferred plan: “No one man will be ruler, therefore love must rule us all/ Dishonesty, anger, fear, jealousy and greed will fall/ Love can save us all” —Prince (1998)
Nevertheless, it does seem clear that 100+ years after Einstein overturned Newtonian physics, there’s no alternative way—other than dressing-down Emperors who got all wrapped-up in the invisible fabric of spacetime they bought from Satan—to MAKE SCIENCE PROGRESS AGAIN.
Article 4, Chapter 5. SCIENCE FOR BOOMERS: How-To Construct Everything by LOCATING DUST BUNNIES HOVERING IN SPACE and COLLAPSING THE DUST BUNNIES IN-PLACE
Speaking on behalf of “science,” famous physicist Dr. Brian Cox recently narrated a high production-value BBC broadcast entitled “The story of the Big Bang”.
“So here is the creation story, as told by science.
In the beginning, there was an ocean of energy that drove a rapid expansion of space, known as inflation.
There were ripples in the ocean.
As inflation ended, the ocean of energy was converted into matter, and the Big Bang.
And the pattern of the ripples was imprinted into our universe, as regions of slightly different density in the hydrogen and helium gas that formed shortly after the Big Bang.
The denser regions of gas collapsed to form the first stars
[unspoken text appears and it says: ‘13.6 BILLION YEARS AGO’]
and the first galaxies.
And 9 billion years later, a new star formed in the Milky Way -
[unspoken text appears and it says: ‘4.6 BILLION YEARS AGO’]
the Sun.
The star was joined by eight planets, including Earth.
And nearly 13.8 billion years after it all began, we emerged, blinking into the light.”
Me: [*emerging from my bathroom, blinking into the Christmas lights that substitute for lamps in my house, while I think to myself*] The Creation Story as told by science makes less sense as A DESCRIPTION OF CAUSES AND EFFECTS than “The Industrial Revolution” story as told by Billy Madison, for A MINIMUM OF TWO REASONS:
REASON #1. According to the Creation Story as told by science, there was “an ocean of energy” sitting-around doing *bupkis* before the Big Bang (HOW WAS IT POSSIBLE FOR AN OCEAN OF ENERGY TO SIT-AROUND AND DO BUPKIS BEFORE? and WHERE DID THE OCEAN OF ENERGY COME-FROM? science does not say), then one day all of a sudden the ocean of energy “drove a rapid expansion of space” called “inflation” (WHAT CAUSED THE OCEAN OF ENERGY TO START DRIVING, aka MOVING, the space? and WHAT IS THE SPACE? and WHAT WAS THE SPACE DOING BEFORE IT WAS DRIVEN BY THE OCEAN OF ENERGY? science does not say), OK but WE KNOW that there had to be *ANOTHER SOURCE OF ENERGY* BESIDES THE OCEAN OF ENERGY—in other words, another source of energy acting-like a “spark plug” or something—TO EXPLAIN WHAT CAUSED THE OCEAN OF ENERGY TO DRIVE, aka MOVE, ALL OF A SUDDEN. So then the question becomes: WHERE DID THAT “SPARK PLUG” OF ENERGY COME-FROM AND WHAT WAS IT DOING BEFORE IT CAUSED THE OCEAN OF ENERGY TO START DRIVING, aka MOVING? And therein lies the logical problem with the Creation Story as told by science, to wit: This necessary line of questioning about THE FIRST CAUSE OF DRIVING, aka MOTION, gives Godless science an *INFINITE REGRESS* PROBLEM to solve, wherein every CAUSE OF DRIVING, aka MOTION, has to have A CAUSE, otherwise the Law of Conservation is violated by saying that energy can be created (out of nothing!)
REASON #2. According to the Creation Story as told by science, after inflation ended, the ocean of energy with ripples BROKE INTO DUST BUNNIES and was converted into matter.
No wait!
That is not the exact vocabulary science selected!
What we are actually told by science is that after inflation ended, the “ocean of energy” with “ripples in the ocean” was “converted into matter,” and then we are separately told that “the pattern of the ripples was imprinted into our universe, as regions of slightly different density in the hydrogen and helium gas.” But of course hydrogen and helium are ATOMS, which, in a GAS FORM, are aptly called DUST BUNNIES. OK that’s all I’m saying.
And therein lies the problem, to wit: Science says, “The denser regions of gas [DUST BUNNIES] collapsed to form the first stars and the first galaxies,” and eventually, DUST BUNNIES COLLAPSED TO FORM THE SUN AND THE EARTH. That’s a tremendous problem because I am certain that there is no BUILDING CODE in the world that specifies HOW TO CONSTRUCT ROBUST STRUCTURES by LOCATING DUST BUNNIES HOVERING IN SPACE and COLLAPSING THE DUST BUNNIES IN-PLACE. And THE ONLY EXPLANATION science could give us about WHY BUILDING CODES THE WORLD-OVER OMIT STANDARDS OF CONSTRUCTION BY “COLLAPSING A DUST-BUNNY HOVERING IN SPACE” is that the Laws of Physics were different in the Beginning than they are now. But THAT EXPLANATION MUST BE WRONG, because the construction means that created the earth are *necessarily* going to *GOVERN* HOW THINGS WORK ON EARTH.
MY CRITIC: Surely you cannot paint all of modern theoretical physics with the same broad brush; is Cox on the BBC all the Big Bang gang is offering these days?
Celebrity Physicist Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson: [February 2, 2024] We know about 17 particles in total at the moment.
Me: 👌Boomer.
Also Me: A cursory review of Wikipedia’s “Big Bang” page indicates that every other Big Bang theory begins with AN ASSUMPTION OF COSMIC INFLATION (cosmic inflation is defined-as, and I quote: “a sudden and very rapid expansion of space during the earliest moments”), then arrives-at the explanation for the Big Bang by (and again I quote): “Extrapolating this cosmic expansion backward in time using the known laws of physics [until]…a singularity in which space and time lose meaning.”
So we see that at a minimum, every other Godless Big Bang theory suffers from THE SAME INFINITE REGRESS PROBLEM—the same violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy—EXPLAINED IN REASON #1, above, REGARDING WHY DR. COX’S CREATION STORY DOESN’T ENABLE MOTION;
the problem is that if you theorize beginning the universe with “a singularity in which space and time lose meaning” that subsequently undergoes “a sudden and very rapid expansion…during the earliest moments,” then you NEED TO STATE A *CAUSE* OF THE RAPID EXPANSION, aka MOTION, to satisfy the Law of Conservation of Energy, otherwise you are creating energy out of nothing, then this necessary line of questioning about THE FIRST CAUSE OF EXPANSION, aka MOTION, leads to questioning about THE CAUSE OF THE FIRST CAUSE OF MOTION, and so on and on without ever satisfying the Law of Conservation of Energy by finding *A FIRST CAUSE OF MOTION* WITHOUT ANY CAUSE.
MY CRITIC: But not all science is Godless; there are plenty of scientists who *BELIEVE* that Eternal God created the universe, so what is the problem with that theory of motion?
Me: [quoting myself from the INTRODUCTION to Article 4 and Article 5] “It’s not even sufficient to say: ‘Motion is Jesus!’ That’s like saying: ‘Motion is magic!’ There is A PHYSICAL EXPLANATION FOR EVERY MAGIC TRICK, and that PHYSICAL EXPLANATION is what is RELEVANT in science.”
And more specifically, the problem with saying “God did it” but NOT EXPLAINING HOW GOD DID IT is that (as discussed in REASON #2, above) the construction means that created the universe are *necessarily* going to *GOVERN* HOW THINGS MOVE INSIDE OF THE UNIVERSE, including on earth.
Doubting Thomas: But gee whiz, that —EXPLAINING HOW GOD DID IT—is such a clear runway that any SCIENTIST worth their salt surely would have landed-on it without any hesitation, regardless of their faith in God or lack thereof, because it would actually take a lot more effort to diss (to refuse to admit or discuss) “the science of God,” would it not?
Me: Yes, without a doubt it would take more effort to diss “the science of God” than to discuss that topic, plus, speculating about “HOW GOD DID IT” is 100 respectful of the Creator! So therefore by process of elimination we must conclude that it is indubitable that the MOTIVE for kicking God out of science is Anti-God, whether the contender is religious or not.
Me: Alternative caption suggestion: “Two Boomers, One Stone Tablet.”
MY CRITIC: How, exactly, is speculating about “HOW GOD DID IT” 100 respectful to the Creator if the speculation contradicts the Creation Story in The Book of Genesis?
Me: That’s a relevant question, but if you’re going to accept the Creation Story in The Book of Genesis as “The Testimony of God,” then you’re going to have to explain why God didn’t “sign” The Book of Genesis in his own name.
You have two options to explain that fact:
Option 1, you can give credit to a human being (e.g., Moses) for authoring The Book of Genesis—you can say IT’S HEARSAY—AND THEN you are going to have to SEPARATELY AUTHENTICATE THE RELIABILITY OF THE HEARSAY, because THE HUMAN AUTHOR IS DEAD AND THEREFORE PER SE UNRELIABLE, since you surely can’t claim that GOD KILLS THE RIGHTEOUS (because at Genesis 19, in re: Sodom and Gomorrah, God plainly tells Abraham that GOD DOES NOT KILL THE RIGHTEOUS, and you can’t win your legal case about the Creation Story in Genesis being TRUE by claiming that YOUR OWN LEGAL DOCTRINE at Genesis 19 is FALSE);
OR
Option 2, you can argue that God actually wrote The Book of Genesis but God didn’t sign his name on it, and instead let a human being such as Moses take the credit, BUT THEN YOU HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM OF SEPARATELY AUTHENTICATING THE RELIABILITY OF THE CREATION STORY, because you surely can’t claim that GOD’S PURPOSE FOR PUTTING GOD’S OWN WORDS IN A DEAD AUTHOR’S PEN IS TO ADJUDGE THE DEAD AUTHOR OF GENESIS TO BE RIGHTEOUS in contravention of God’s own words at Genesis 19!
So therefore whichever option you choose, TO ACCEPT THE CREATION STORY IN THE BOOK OF GENESIS https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201&version=NIV AT FACE-VALUE, IT IS NECESSARY FOR YOU TO SEPARATELY AUTHENTICATE IT.
And therein lies the SCIENTIFIC problem, to wit:
The Creation Story in The Book of Genesis DOES NOT ENABLE a deity having ordinary skill in THE ART OF CONSTRUCTION to CREATE THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH (“THE UNIVERSE”) in a reasonable amount of time by following the procedure described in the story.
There aren’t enough details in the Creation Story in The Book of Genesis, and in addition, the small amount of information that readers are given does not even pertain to the art of construction.
Ergo, it is IMPOSSIBLE TO AUTHENTICATE THE CREATION STORY in The Book of Genesis, and that means that we *cannot rely on it*—we cannot ADMIT IT—as being RELEVANT TO THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER of “HOW GOD DID IT.”
Also Me: So now our hands our tied—we are FORBIDDEN as matter of Blackletter EVIDENTIARY LAW—from RELYING ON the Creation Story in The Book of Genesis as being RELEVANT TO THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER OF “HOW GOD DID IT,” and that conclusion AFFIRMS my prior assertion that (and here I quote myself): “speculating about ‘HOW GOD DID IT’ is 100 respectful of the Creator! So therefore by process of elimination we must conclude that it is indubitable that the MOTIVE for kicking God out of science is Anti-God, whether the contender is religious or not.”
God: [*in my imagination, upon being kicked out of science by Anti-God darned Emperors who wanna be showing off their brand spanking new clothes and telling the Creation Story with Cox on the BBC or Moses in Genesis*] Wut the AUTOPEN IS this? Are you sure you want to AUTOPEN IS with me?? Go ahead, make my day!
Kids at the White House in 2026: Oh say, can you tell us what the AUTO PEN IS?
White House Insider Speaking Outside of the House: Yes, children, you see the AUTO PEN IS leading followers of <insert name of prick>’s plan to keep the American public safe from discovering that people in positions of public trust are only pretending to know how to sign their names.
ARTICLE 5. KEEP BUSTIN’ EINSTEIN: The Creator’s ADL Backbones Do Not Bend Over for Creation
Article 5, Chapter 1. Say Hello to Einstein’s Little Theory of Motion
Zeno: How is MOVEMENT possible if you can always divide distance into smaller increments?
Ascan: [Astronaut candidate, “For All Mankind”] Houston, we’ve had a problem! ALBERT EINSTEIN’S THEORIES DO NOT ANSWER ZENO’S QUESTION!
Check it out:
Kids at career-day: What is Albert Einstein’s Special Relativity?
Dr. Brian Cox: [Y]ou can vary the rate at which you go into the future relative to someone else. For example, if I was to get in a rocket now, and accelerate-off—even at 1G, right, just sort-of an acceleration I could take—and head-off and end-up traveling close to the speed of light, and let’s say go to the Andromeda Galaxy, which is 2 Million light-years away from the perspective of the earth, and then turn-around and come back again, if I got close-enough to the speed of light, I could arrange it so I would age let’s say a year on the outward journey and a year on the inward journey (and you could do that calculation), but FOUR MILLION YEARS would have passed on earth, so I WOULD COME BACK FROM THAT JOURNEY TWO YEARS OLDER, but I would arrive-at the earth FOUR MILLION YEARS INTO THE FUTURE. So that’s just Special Relativity.
Kids at career-day: [“Your Friend, Nate Bargatze“] How long [do you have to go to school] to be a comedian?
Nate Bargatze: You’re good. NOW. So….look, finish elementary school…but then I’d get out and get after it.
The “invisible fabric” of spacetime.
Hans Christian Andersen might laugh to see a so-called genius re-enact “The Emperor’s New Clothes” story.
It’s funny-Boomer, but it’s not a barrel of laughs for honest people oppressed by “clever” liars—
(D)evil-lauding people who are going to claim that they were only pretending to be delulu to fool the real cray people like me, so that’s OK because failure is going to be their only shot at salvaging their ego, but instead, they are probably going to insist they got over on me, and in that case I’ll gladly concede their win, since credibly playing dumb is impossible for a really smart person to do—
and I trust that God will protect THE HONEST people in the world from THE EMPERORS’ NEW CLOTHES by TRUE EXPOSURE, not with the cold comfort of ancient children’s stories.
Think about it: What if a science-minded person’s CREDIBILITY IN SOCIETY depended-on PLEDGING ALLEGIANCE to Albert Einstein’s directionless mathematical “invisible fabric” of spacetime, which was strictly bossed-around by matter, as if space was an unhinged place managed by constituents with the deepest pockets?
IMAGINE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN if a wanna-be Einstein denied Absolute Space (God) in the name of science, and MULTIPLE GENERATIONS OF CHILDREN WERE FLUNKED OUT OF SCHOOL AND/OR DECLARED TO BE UNFIT FOR POSITIONS OF PUBLIC TRUST if they refused (or were merely too confused) to “believe”—AND PROFESS ON A SCIENCE TEST—that there weren’t any fixed coordinates along which matter in motion kept moving (per Newton’s First Law of Motion) regardless of whether or not any body was present in the universe!
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO SOCIETY if PROFESSING “BELIEF” IN ALBERT EINSTEIN’S THEORIES OF RELATIVITY was a prerequisite for “CERTIFICATION”?
Sunny: [“For All Mankind”] To build a statue for something that didn’t even happen. It’s fucking…
Man: [*interrupting*] Diabolical.
But it’s a house of cards, which is NEVER TOO BIG TO FAIL, because Einstein’s theory of motion is WORSE than asking the cart to pull the horse!
At least the cart and horse have a Mutually-Relative relationship.
Recall the discussion in Article 3 about the distinction between a Mutually-Relative relationship and an Absolute-Relative relationship.
So while it might not be very HELPFUL for a cart to pull a horse (police officer on Vacation: “Do you know what the penalty for animal cruelty is in this state?”) at least it wouldn’t be IMPOSSIBLE, because the horse is not blocking the cart from getting past it in the 3-d Down direction, nor is the cart blocking the horse from getting past it in the 3-d Down direction, *and* both the cart and the horse are “RIDING” DIRECTLY ON TOP of the surface of the earth, which means that they are both “riding” ON TOP OF THE EARTH’S COM.
Contrast the POSSIBILITY of a cart pulling a horse with the IMPOSSIBILITY of a jockey running a horse (moving the horse’s legs.)
A horse and a jockey have an Absolute-Relative relationship.
So now we understand why it’s IMPOSSIBLE to do what Einstein theorized—put matter in-command of space (space in this context being THE “PATHS,” AKA LINES, IN THE UNIVERSE) so that matter “tells space how to curve”—and it’s because space and matter have an Absolute-Relative relationship, like a horse and jockey.
As we established in Article 3, space—everywhere matter can travel, each and every 3-d direction—IS “RIDING” ON TOP OF THE ADL BACKBONES, which have FIXED POSITIONS.
Recall from Article 3:
The direction on an ADL Backbone that is AWAY FROM THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE—the Absolute Forward direction—is always going to be the direction that is AWAY FROM THE ORIGIN OF GOD (away from the single point at the center of the 6-d COM, aka the 6-d Anchor Point.)
Ergo, it’s PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for matter to tell space which way to curve, because that would literally require MOVING AN ADL BACKBONE, aka GOD!
QUESTION: Can Creation (matter) tell the Creator (God) to BEND OVER?
ANSWER:
Translation: 👌Boomer!
Article 5, Chapter 2. No Body Has Time 👌Boomer
While we’re on the subject of the impossibility of MASS TELLING SPACE—which is “riding” on top of GOD’S STRAIGHT AND IMMOVABLE ADL BACKBONES—TO CURVE 😂 we should also go-ahead and kill the “RELATIVE TIME” portion of the illogical abomination called “spacetime.”
NOTE that we must conclude that PHYSICAL ACTIONS immediately cause equal-and-opposite REACTIONS, because there is no certain end-time of a force and a SAP’s existence gives it a constant mandate to move or attempt to move NOW based-on the NET FORCE it is experiencing NOW.
ALSO NOTE, however, that to guarantee constant Conservation of Energy, all MOVEMENT in the universe—regardless of the distance traveled and regardless of whether or not the movement includes a CHANGE OF DIRECTION and regardless of the size or SHAPE of a moving object—must happen SYNCHRONOUSLY.
We see that the only way to meet all three of those conditions in response to physical force application—and again, the three conditions are: (1) instantaneous equal-and-opposite REACTION, (2) instantaneous MOVEMENT, and (3) universal SYNCHRONICITY (constant Conservation of Energy)—is if:
(a) ALL MOTION FROM POINT A TO POINT B IS LINEAR (in other words, there can be no such thing as “turning” during movement from point A to point B, because “turning” would introduce variability between matter having different sizes and shapes, although NOTE that ROTATION AROUND AN AXIS would always be possible), which is NOT A PROBLEM, because we’ve already proven that the space on top of God’s straight and fixed ADL Backbones could never CURVE when matter throws-down;
*and*
(b) CAUSES OF MOTION AND THE MOTION ITSELF OCCUR IN ONE FIXED-LENGTH INTERVAL OF TIME, which is the concept of “Absolute Time,” a foundational assumption of Issac Newton.
We have now shown that “TIME WAITS FOR NO MAN” is REALITY, and “TIME SLOWS DOWN AS MATTER SPEEDS UP” is BLASPHEMOUS HOGWASH.
QUESTION: If TIME IS ABSOLUTE, then how can we explain the need to slow-down a GPS receiver’s clock on earth TO ACCURATELY RECEIVE INFORMATION TRANSMITTED BY “GEOSYNCHRONOUS SATELLITES” IN HIGH ORBIT (the transmitter satellites have faster tik-toking clocks than the receivers on earth), which is something that celebrity physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson cited as PROOF that *TIME IS RELATIVE* in a November, 2024 video entitled “Time is Relative!”, confessing: “I still lose sleep over this fact”?
ANSWER: I submit that THE REAL REASON WHY GPS receivers on earth need to have a slower tik-toking rate than the “geosynchronous satellites” sending them information from high earth orbit is THE LARGE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE EARTH AND THE THE GEOSYNCHRONOUS SATELLITES, *NOT* THE RELATIVITY OF TIME!
In reality, the distance between the INFORMATION TRANSMITTER in-orbit and the INFORMATION RECEIVER on earth is LARGE ENOUGH that information traveling at the CONSTANT speed of light won’t completely finish arriving at the receiver on earth if the CLOCKS on the transmitter and the receiver are tik-toking at the same rate (i.e., if the CLOCK-RATES are the same), so therefore the receiver on earth has to have a SLOWER-RUNNING CLOCK (which means that the duration between tik-toks has to be *slightly longer* on earth) to guarantee that all of the information *transmitted from* the in-orbit transmitter in one tik-tok of the TRANSMITTER’S CLOCK is also *received by* the on-earth receiver in the next tik-tok of the RECEIVER’S CLOCK.
In other words, the distance between the in-orbit satellite and the on-earth GPS receiver is SO LARGE that THE INFORMATION TRAVEL TIME has to be added-on to the GPS RECEIVER CLOCK’s tik-tok rate to ensure that the transmitted information doesn’t get “cut off” before all of it is received!
In this manner, the transmitter and the receiver can be programmed INDEPENDENTLY with reference to only their own individual CLOCKS, which is important because if one of the pieces of equipment breaks or gets some “upgrade” or other, then it can be swapped-out and replaced without having to replace and/or re-program the other piece of equipment.
Of course, if you wanted BOTH CLOCKS TO “TELL YOU THE TIME” when you asked (for example, to make data-analysis more user-friendly), then you would have to do a little math (in a little ”app”) to make them tell you the SAME TIME.
But to repeat: The CLOCK RATES that are used to SYNCHRONIZE EQUIPMENT have nothing to do with TIME ITSELF, which necessarily flows from the origin of God (Father Time, aka the Jesus/God the Father part of God) at a constant pace everywhere in the universe and SYNCHRONIZES THE RATE OF MOVEMENT (or attempted movement) OF ALL THINGS.
I know that it’s soooo tempting to give Neil deGrasse Tyson “credit” for knowing sh*t, but I mean really stop and think about this particular topic: Neil deGrasse Tyson is asking his audience to believe that TIME IS RELATIVE BECAUSE *THE CLOCK TICKS FASTER* IN THE TRANSMITTER OF THE SATELLITE IN HIGH ORBIT, *as if* THERE IS A “NATURAL CLOCK” IN THE SATELLITE with the job of REPORTING THE SPEED OF TIME!
Look around the room you’re in right now and ask the various objects you see—I mean, go ahead and ASK THE HUNK OF QUARTZ of your choice—to TELL YOU THE SPEED OF TIME.
I’ll wait while you ask-around.
TIME and THE THINGS—both light and matter—THAT ARE BEING MOVED BY TIME are in an Absolute-Relative relationship.
NOTE, however, that light and matter are “divided” by the speed of light (matter is “riding” on top of light), and therefore the speed of light is in theory detectable by matter, BUT THE TIK-TOK RATE OF TIME ITSELF IS NOT DETECTABLE BY MATTER because THE CONSTANT MOTION OF EVERY SAP *and the constant motion of light* is being CAUSED BY TIME, which means that at the SAP level—one SAP observing another SAP or one SAP observing light—AN OBSERVER WOULD BE UNABLE TO *DETERMINE THE DIFFERENCE* BETWEEN “THE RATE OF MOVEMENT OF THE OBSERVER” AND “THE RATE OF MOVEMENT OF THE OBSERVED.”
TIME IS A “UNITY”—a CONSTANT REPEATING EVENT; not a force, not a thing, but rather, an “inherent function” (like an ”infinite division” feature, e.g., generating another digit of Pi, which we describe as “time”)—that matter and light RESPOND-TO SYNCHRONOUSLY.
If we want to DIFFERENTIATE between matter, one approach we can take is to observe the difference in THE SPEED OF MATTER OVER SOME DISTANCE, and we can NOTICE how much FORCE is required to get different things MOVING AT THE SAME SPEED—
that’s what Isaac Newton did, and he observed that a constant external physical force, F, applied to an object with mass, m, for “one instant” (and then removed) will cause the object to move with constant speed in the same direction as the force at a rate that’s inversely proportional to the object’s mass (that’s Newton’s First Law of Motion, F = mass*velocity); and Isaac Newton also observed that if the same force, F, is applied in the same direction for multiple “instants” (meaning over a chunk of time measured with a clock-rate of the observer’s choice) then that will cause the object to ACCELERATE over the chosen chunk of time at a rate that’s inversely proportional to the square root of the object’s mass (that’s Newton’s Second Law of Motion, F = mass*velocity-squared)—
and obviously there are other ways to DIFFERENTIATE between matter, but the point is that TIME SYNCHRONIZES ALL MOVEMENT IN THE UNIVERSE.
Article 5, Chapter 3. The Speed of Light = The Speed of Time: The Tik-Tok Rate of the Universe’s Clock
QUESTION: Could we conclude that the speed of light is the speed of time?
ANSWER: Yes, the speed of light is the same as the speed of time.
7-Step EXPLANATION:
First step, NOTE that for computation purposes alone—just as a PRACTICAL matter, I mean—the speed of light would be a valid tik-tok rate to ASSUME for the Universe’s Clock, because we know that matter’s speed is DEPENDENT-ON light’s speed (that’s what it means for light and matter to be in an Absolute-Relative relationship.)
Second step, ALSO NOTE that LIGHT CAN PROPAGATE “WIRELESSLY”—no strings from the 6th dimension attached!—which *suggests* that light IS “telling time” inherently, and FURTHER NOTE the necessary EQUIVALENCE of mass and wave-energy, aka light, to enable Eternal motion (Wave-Particle Duality) in each dimension of God without introducing MUTUAL-RELATIVITY within a dimension.
Third step, RECALL (see Article 4, Chapter 2) that A VALID THEORY OF MOTION CANNOT EXIST IF THERE IS A BEGINNING OF MASS, which means that MASS MUST BE ETERNAL AND *RECYCLED* BETWEEN ETERNAL PARTICLES, with each Eternal particle needing to continually “eat” and “work with” and “poop” MASS (which is ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE-ENERGY, aka LIGHT; see Second step), and that means doing two things concurrently: (a) expressing Wave-Particle Duality, i.e., thrusting “poop” light (old mass) along a line in one direction and thereby applying a physical, aka “working,” force of mass—Fmass—in the opposite direction along the same line; and (b) receiving a re-fill of mass (new mass), which is *recycled* mass, i.e., “poop” light that is being thrust out of a particle in another dimension.
Fourth step, RECALL that the “CATCHING A LIGHT BEAM” thought-experiment (see Article 3, SECOND PART of The Two-Part Thought-Experiment about Relativity) shows that the speed of light is constant from the POV of matter, and after we rule-out God’s ADL Backbones bending and the flow of time changing on matter’s command as the explanation, we conclude that the reason why is because light and matter are in an Absolute-Relative relationship (meaning that matter’s existence is DEPENDENT-ON LIGHT’S EXISTENCE but not vice-versa.)
Fifth step, the KNOWN FACT of light and matter being in an Absolute-Relative relationship (see Fourth Step) allows us to CONFIRM our prior deduction (see Second step) that LIGHT IS THE FORCE OF MASS (Fmass) *INSIDE* OF ETERNAL PARTICLES.
Sixth step, light being the force of mass (Fmass) *inside* of Eternal particles (see Fifth step) means that light and the Eternal particles are also in an Absolute-Relative relationship, with particles being dependent-on light for existence (movement), but light NOT being dependent-on particles for existence.
Seventh step, ERGO, putting all of the previous steps together, we conclude that the Timeynes in the 6th dimension must be “riding” ON TOP OF LIGHT, which means that LIGHT MUST BE AT THE FOUNDATION OF REALITY, aka the 6-d Anchor Point, which is also where “time happens”; we don’t need to know (we can never know!) HOW “time happens” or HOW “light propagates at the speed of time,” we only need to know that light must be “at” the 6-d Anchor Point, and therefore time happens there, too, and of course the 6-d Anchor Point is also THE ORIGIN OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF FATHER TIME (THE JESUS/GOD THE FATHER PART OF GOD.)
End of explanation: The speed of light is the speed of time.
NOW Isaac Newton’s assumptions of “Absolute Space and Time” are back, and we have shown that those assumptions can co-exist with the observable fact of “the relativity of simultaneity,” so we’re BACK ON THE TRACK.
“Nobody’s gonna get me on another rap, so look at me now: I’m just makin’ my play, don’t try to push your luck, just get out of my way, ‘cause I’m back, yes, I’m back…I’m BACK IN BLACK.”
Article 5, Chapter 4. Pardon Me, Would You Have Any Grey Poupon?: Riding on “Einstein’s Train” to Eavesdrop on Physicists Discussing the Relativity of Simultaneity
QUESTION: What is “the relativity of simultaneity”?
ANSWER: It’s putting Grey Poupon on a wiener.
It’s a pretentious way of talking about the ordinary with the intent to EXCLUDE “COMMONERS” FROM THE TOPIC OF CONVERSATION, which in this case is:
“Dude, you and I are in different places right now, and since light’s speed is constant from the POV of matter, that means we might not see light from the same source at the same time!”
It’s the reason why a GPS receiver on earth needs “extra time” to get all the data from a transmitter in high orbit; some of the time in every clock cycle is spent waiting for the data to arrive!
It simply means that the amount of time that it takes light to travel from a light source at point A to an observer at point B depends-on the distance between the point A and point B; and of course if point B is moving—if the observer is in motion—then that is going to either increase or decrease the distance that light has to travel to get to point B, which will then increase or decrease the amount of time that it takes for light to reach point B.
And also of course—and here’s where we’re going to see the origin of “the relativity of simultaneity” vocabulary—IF THERE ARE TWO OR MORE OBSERVERS OF THE SAME LIGHT SOURCE, then THE DIFFERENT OBSERVERS WILL BE LOCATED AT DIFFERENT POINT Bs, so therefore if there is any difference whatsoever in the distance between the light source and each point B, then the observers won’t “see the light” at the same time.
And that—the fact that different observers at different distances from the same light source will “see the light” at different times depending-on how close or far away they are from the light source (with closer observers seeing the light sooner than observers who are farther away from the light source)—is “THE RELATIVITY OF SIMULTANEITY.”
QUESTION: Do we really need a thought-project on that?
ANSWER: Yes, because it’s such a cut-and-dried fact that it’s funny to watch scientists try to make it into a triumph of Einstein’s Special Relativity;
let’s use “Einstein’s Train” thought-experiment to illustrate “THE RELATIVITY OF SIMULTANEITY.”
Here’s the Basic Betty:
Now hear here what famous physicist Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder has to say regarding what “Einstein’s Train” thought-experiment tells us.
Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder: It tells us that this experience of “now” that we all share is meaningless….and more specifically….the past, the present, and the future exist in the same way. So the past in which your grandma is still alive exists the same way as this present moment.
Larry the Cable Guy: I’d say “tomato,” she would say “bowling shoes”!
CRITIC of Larry the Cable Guy: [*in my imagination, trying to understand the EXISTENTIAL CRISIS that Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder earnestly explained*] Yeah but I still don’t understand why, *exactly*, THERE IS NO EXISTENTIAL ISSUE—why, *exactly*, is it👌Boomer to conclude that “now” is meaningless and your dead grandma is still alive in this present moment—based-on the result of “Einstein’s Train” thought experiment (the result was the simple fact that it takes a different amount of time for light to go from point A to point B1 and from point A to point B2 when point B1 and point B2 aren’t an equal distance away from point A)?
ANSWER: It is👌Boomer because regardless of what you are “now” observing, you are observing *something* “now,” so if you and your friend, Alice, are observing *different things* “now,” then that gives you information about where you and your friend Alice are *located* “now,” but that does NOT make TIME—“now”—DEPENDENT-ON YOUR (OR YOUR FRIEND ALICE’S) OBSERVATIONS. You and your friend Alice don’t “tell time” when events occur by making observations “now.” You and your friend Alice go here and there and bear witness to what’s happening “now” over here and over there. Yes, it’s 100 correct to conclude that if you observe an event, then—by definition—that event already happened, and therefore *technically*, you are always “observing the past,” because you can’t actually see anything happen, since SOMETHING HAS TO HAPPEN *BEFORE* YOU CAN SEE IT! And you might not have realized before that you and your friend are completely different people who both exist “now” yet don’t see ALL OF THE SAME THINGS “NOW.” But in fact, all that means is that YOU ARE NOT JESUS CHRIST. This may be a SHOCKING REVELATION, so I’ll repeat it: YOU ARE NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSE, AND THERE ARE THINGS OUTSIDE OF YOUR LANE. And also to repeat: It is👌Boomer to conclude that YOUR IGNORANCE OF THE EXACT TIMING OF EVENTS (i.e., your NON-OMNISCIENCE) means that THE FLOW OF TIME ITSELF IS DEFINED BY YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.
QUESTION: What do other Special Relativity experts have to say about “Einstein’s Train” thought-experiment?
ANSWER: Survey says…👌Boomer
Article 5, Chapter 5. Conservation of Energy = MATH, NOT PHYSICS, in Einstein’s Relativity
QUESTION: In Einstein’s theories, how is Conservation of Energy satisfied if time is relative and dependent-on motion?
ANSWER:
QUESTION: *Other than* THE FACT that it’s always possible to divide motion (distance) into smaller increments—which is AN UNSOLVABLE PROBLEM (see Article 4, Chapter 1) that causes MATH (e.g., a 4-vector) as an explanation for motion to make “beginning movement” impossible per Zeno’s Infinite Divisibility Paradox—WHAT ELSE IS WRONG with Einstein’s conclusion that Conservation of Energy = CONSERVATION OF THE MATHEMATICAL 4-VECTOR?
ANSWER: Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity is based-on dual assumptions: (1) the speed of light is constant from the POV of matter; AND (2) light particles (“photons”) MOVE RELATIVE-TO EACH OTHER.
The fatal logical problem is that those two assumptions (light’s speed is constant from the POV of matter AND light particles move relative-to each other) are CONTRADICTORY, because it’s impossible for a singular thing—the constant speed of light—to become relative-to (dependent-on) itself, for two reasons:
First, it’s NON-SENSICAL to say that A CONSTANT THING CAN BE RELATIVE-TO ITSELF, because RELATIVITY REQUIRES TWO THINGS IN THE SAME DIMENSION, by definition, and the speed of light (aka LIGHT ITSELF) is one thing, not two things;
and
second, if it is assumed that one light moves relative-to another light (if we say that “photons” are Mutually-Relative, e.g., they become “entangled”), then this causes an infinite regress error (A LOGICAL ERROR) by causing each light TO BE “CREATED EQUAL” IN THE SAME DIMENSION, which means that “ALL THE LIGHTS” ARE DEPENDENT-ON A GREATER THING FOR THEIR EXISTENCE, so then that greater thing must also be dependent-on a GREATER GREATER THING, and so on and on, which is impossible.
We’ve shown (see SECOND PART of The Two-Part Relativity Thought Experiment in Article 3) that the reason why the speed of light is constant from the POV of matter is because light and matter have an Absolute-Relative relationship.
And we’ve also shown (see Article 5, Chapter 3, Sixth step) that light and the Eternal particles are also in an Absolute-Relative relationship, which means that LIGHT IS AT THE FOUNDATION OF REALITY (the 6-d Anchor Point), and by its movement “tells Absolute Time.”
To repeat: LIGHT, the FOUNDATION OF REALITY, IS *NOT RELATIVE*, and it sure as heck is NOT RELATIVE-TO ITSELF!
So we see that we don’t have to DEBUNK THE MATH—“the energy-momentum 4-vector” that guarantees Conservation of Energy in Einstein’s theories—we simply have to NOTICE that THE MATH is NOT THE PHYSICS; and more specifically, we have to NOTICE that the math does not tell us that the underlying physical assumptions we are making are PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!
The reason why THE MATH never “fails to work” is because—as we have seen with light—the Absolute can be QUANTIFIED (it can be both ETERNAL—which means NOT CREATED—and FINITE, e.g., light has a fixed speed and a limited total quantity), and MATHEMATICAL CONSISTENCY is all that MATH requires to “work.”
Math does not GAF if what it’s “working on” is a PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.
That’s what Zeno’s Paradoxes demonstrate so well, to wit: WHEN WE LEAVE THE PHYSICAL REALM AND ENTER THE NUMERICAL REALM, WE *CANNOT SEE* THE LOGICAL PROBLEMS *IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD* THAT THE MATH DGAF ABOUT, because if the Absolute is QUANTIFIED NUMERICALLY, then THERE IS NO LOGICAL PROBLEM WITH NUMBERS BEING EQUAL TO EACH OTHER!
The PHYSICS (aka PHYSICAL) problem DISAPPEARS in the NUMERICAL REALM.
The issue IN REALITY is that there is no thing that MATCHES LIGHT; LIGHT IS PHYSICAL, and has NO EQUAL.
BUT A NUMBER IS NOT A PHYSICAL THING, so MATH has no problem with ASSIGNING THE SAME NUMBER to PHYSICAL THINGS THAT HAVE NO EQUAL.
QUESTION: How, then, is the proposal in Article 1 to use Free Will to change the GOVERNOR MODULE NUMBER of one’s Soul to Pi a PHYSICAL POSSIBILITY, since Souls are not relative-to each other, i.e., they are PHYSICAL THINGS THAT HAVE NO EQUAL?
ANSWER: The proposal in Article 1 is CONSISTENT WITH PHYSICAL REALITY; all Souls inherently have GOVERNOR MODULE NUMBERS, and in theory, all Souls with Free Will could have chosen to have THE SAME GOVERNOR MODULE NUMBER! In the beginning, the problem would have been that Justice, aka KARMA, couldn’t be done AS BETWEEN decision-makers if any two decision-makers INITIALLY had the same RELATIVELY-EVIL GOVERNOR MODULE NUMBER. But when there’s NO KARMA to worry about—in a POST-KARMA world—there’s no reason why decision-makers couldn’t have the same GOOD GOVERNOR MODULE NUMBER. And in fact, this would represent FREEDOM FROM THE PAST WITHOUT LOSING THE “OLD NUMBER,” since that number is *embedded* in the “root” of the consciousness, and all post-number-change events would have to be registered “on top of” the pre-number-change events, so that “the person” would be ENABLED TO EVOLVE, as opposed to being “replaced.”
The point is that the problem is *not* MATH—the problem is *not* NUMBERS—the problem arises when THE MATH IS INCONSISTENT WITH PHYSICAL REALITY.
And in Einstein’s case, he used math to describe *physically-impossible things*, and then (because the math “worked,” as math always does) EINSTEIN’S “TRICK” WAS HIDDEN.
And to repeat: That’s what Zeno was saying about THEORIES OF MOTION that do not conclude that MOTION (OR ATTEMPTED MOTION) IS PERPETUAL; Zeno was saying that if all you’ve got in your THEORY OF MOTION is EQUATIONS THAT DESCRIBE MOTION (and that’s all Einstein’s got!), then you can’t reach your goal (destination!) that way—you’re MAKING MOTION PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE by SADDLING YOURSELF WITH THE PROBLEM OF SOLVING *THE INFINITE DIVISIBILITY PARADOX* BEFORE YOU CAN MAKE ANYTHING MOVE—because when you have *a distance to move* from the *starting-line* to the *finish-line*, then YOU HAVE TO MOVE HALF OF THE DISTANCE TO THE *FINISH-LINE* BEFORE YOU CAN MOVE THE WHOLE DISTANCE.
Article 5, Chapter 6. VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OF PHYSICS Occurring Per the Britney Spears Music Theory: Oops! I Did It Again but You Can’t Blame Me (Because I’m a Clueless Victim of Albert Einstein Not a Scientist Accomplice After-the-Fact)
I submit that Einstein’s theories of gravitational motion (the General Theory of Relativity) and non-gravitational motion (the Theory of Special Relativity) are best explained as CRIMES AGAINST GOD AND HONEST HUMAN BEINGS that were perpetrated with THE DUAL M.O. of:
(1) USING MATH TO NEGATE GOD (to eliminate Newton’s assumptions of Absolute Space and Absolute Time);
then
(2) CONSISTENTLY AND PERSISTENTLY RE-DEFINING “ABSOLUTE” TO MEAN “RELATIVE,”
which created fatal flaws (irreconcilable contradictions, like “invisible clothes”) in the theories.
Dr. Spencer Klavan: When we see math, we think we’re looking at something universally valid, and something that not only hangs to together in our brains, but will also send a rocket ship to Mars.
Dr. Spencer Klavan: [speaking to Dr. Jordan Peterson in a video entitled “The Three Body Problem”] If you have three bodies mutually-attracting each other [gravitationally], it’s impossible to lay-out a logos…that is, a consistent system that can be reduced to abstract principles, comprehended by the human mind, and then used to fly to outer space [or] to navigate through whatever situation you find yourself in, and the reason [the author of “The Three Body Problem” book] starts with this is because…[we] might hit a point when the whole structure of reality [as science describes it]…just doesn’t compute inside of us because we no longer have this conviction that the imprint on our brains is effectively the hand of God.
NOTE that we wouldn’t need to worry about THE THREE BODY PROBLEM at all if GRAVITY was not caused directly or indirectly by one mass being attracted-to another mass.
But then the problem would become THE CREDIBILITY OF THE MISTAKEN SCIENTISTS—who are going to have to correct their errors or else cease to be known as HONEST SCIENTISTS AND HUMAN(E) BEINGS—and that’s going to be A HUGE PROBLEM IN THIS MODERN AGE because the assumption has always been that MORE MASSIVE BODIES cause MORE GRAVITY to be experienced, whereas under the CORRECT theory of gravity, it’s not necessarily going to be True that MORE MASSIVE BODIES cause MORE GRAVITY to be experienced.
QUESTION: WHAT IF “MORE GRAVITY” IS NOT CAUSED EXTERNALLY BY A “MORE MASSIVE BODY”—e.g., what if a “more massive body” BALANCES (cancels-out) INTERNAL GRAVITY?—then HOW WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE for any body to experience LESS GRAVITY ON THE MOON AND ON MARS, which are SIGNIFICANTLY LESS MASSIVE THAN THE EARTH?
ANSWER:
ALSO NOTE that in the TOEWC, there is a PARTICLE SOURCE—the Gravitynes in the 5th dimension—SUPPLYING THE CONSTANT, ETERNAL FORCE OF GRAVITY, so we don’t have to worry about THE THREE BODY PROBLEM.
And in the future—after we figure-how how mass is made—we will surely see that there is a simple reason why THE FORCE OF GRAVITY *seems* to decrease as a function of distance from the center of the earth.
I predict that we will discover that it’s because WAVE-ENERGY generated by the mass of the earth “PUTS THE BRAKES ON” OUR NATURALLY 3-d DOWN-ORIENTED CENTER-OF-MASS (“COM”), so that the higher we get above the earth, the more mass of the earth is underneath us, and the more WAVE-ENERGY we are experiencing, until finally—when all the mass of the earth is underneath us—we are LEVITATING.
Picture this: There’s no material thing holding you up, and THE “ENGINE” (physical force) OF GRAVITY IS REVVING INSIDE OF YOU TO CAUSE YOU TO FREE-FALL, BUT THE “BRAKING SYSTEM” OF THE EARTH IS ALSO DELIVERING ELECTROMAGNETIC POWER (wave-energy) TO YOU, SO NOW YOU ARE HOVERING—more or less, depending-on how much electromagnetic braking power (wave-energy) you are getting from the earth—INSTEAD OF FULL-SPEED FALLING.
And that seems to me like the simplest and most obvious explanation for observations of free-falling things on earth (in the absence of air resistance.)
But it’s only intuitive if you know which way is 3-d Down—3-d Down is an approximation of THE ABSOLUTE BACKWARD DIRECTION on the nearest ADL Backbone—because that’s the only way to figure-out where you’re at and which way you’re heading.
Now that we’ve found the Universal Down—3-d Down—*and* we’ve re-set the Universal Clock back to Absolute Time (which we deduced tik-toks at the speed of light), we have thoroughly beaten the dead horse of “spacetime,” and it can NEVER be resurrected.
But there’s another “Easter Egg”—another “viper’s egg,” actually—in Einstein’s theory of gravity (aka the General Theory of Relativity) that we have to break so that we can hold-up the hatched adder to the light and end its power to cover-up super-massive frauds in science, to wit:
The General Theory of Relativity says that “gravitational waves” ARE NOT LIGHT, but yet gravitational waves travel at the speed of light.
Let’s PRETEND that we don’t know that gravitational waves are integral with the dead horse of “spacetime” that we’ve already beaten.
Even if we didn’t know that gravitational waves were “in spacetime,” we couldn’t be tricked into going on a SNIPE HUNT for them, because gravitational waves, by definition, are neither light nor matter, but we know that LIGHT AND MATTER are the only two things in the universe, because the universe had to be created from ONE THING: LUMEYNE PARTICLES IN THE 4th DIMENSION (and a particle must be a simple “LIGHT CONTAINER,” since it’s impossible for particles in a dimension to have MUTUALLY-RELATIVE PARTS *or* to be RELATIVE-TO EACH OTHER, so therefore they cannot be “constructs” with *multiple parts*.)
CRITIC: [*making an excellent point*] But gravitational waves have reportedly been spotted in the wild by HIGH-PAID SCIENTISTS, and it seems very unlikely that a legitimate scientist could IMAGINE that they SAW SOMETHING *INVISIBLE* coming through a tube in the ground from 1.3 billion light years away!
Hans Christian Andersen: [*in my imagination*, thinking about the plot of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”] It makes sense to be TRICKED INTO *LOOKING FOR* AN INVISIBLE SNIPE, but I don’t understand how it would be possible to be TRICKED INTO *FINDING* AN INVISIBLE SNIPE.
QUESTION: If light and matter are in an Absolute-Relative relationship, then why do we need to talk about the speed of light “in a vacuum,” since it’s impossible for light to travel “in a medium”?
ANSWER: We do not! In the case of “the speed of light in a vacuum” supposedly being different from “the speed of light in a medium,” there are TWO FALSE ASSUMPTIONS being made:
(1) it is being illogically assumed that LIGHT TRAVELS *THROUGH MATTER* (as opposed to light merely *acting-on matter* like a physical force would do);
and
(2) it is being falsely assumed that MATTER CAN ACT-UPON LIGHT, which is the same thing as saying that LIGHT IS RELATIVE-TO MATTER, when in fact, MATTER IS RELATIVE-TO LIGHT BUT NOT VICE-VERSA.
Arthur Eddington famously formalized the false conclusion that matter can act-upon light in 1919, when he used Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity to predict that the enormous mass of the sun—the sun’s gravitational effect—would cause the trajectory of a LIGHT BEAM FROM ANOTHER STAR to “bend,” then Eddington conducted an EXPERIMENT DURING A SOLAR ECLIPSE, which supposedly “proved” Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity!
What Einstein and Eddington were asking people to irrationally believe is that the sun’s mass tells the ADL Backbones (the Eternally fixed-position Snowmen of God, upon which all 3-d directions of space are “riding”) to CURVE.
QUESTION: Can Creation (matter) tell the Creator (God’s ADL Backbones) to curve?
ANSWER:👌BOOMER! (NO!!!)
QUESTION: But how, pray tell, can we argue with Arthur Eddington’s OBSERVATIONS?
ANSWER: The refutation of Einstein’s SHAM THEORY and Eddington’s SHAM OBSERVATIONS has two steps.
First step of the refutation of Einstein and Eddington: RECALL Einstein’s own “CHASING A LIGHT BEAM” thought-experiment (see SECOND PART of The Two-Part Relativity Thought Experiment in Article 3), which concludes that from the POV of matter, the speed of light is constant.
That conclusion is undeniably TRUE; I submit, however, that Einstein was wrong about the reason why (Einstein said that the reason why is because moving objects make time slow down, and also objects shrink; but I have already shown that Newton’s assumptions of Absolute Time and Absolute Space were correct, which means that the REAL reason why is because light and matter have an Absolute-Relative relationship, with matter’s existence being dependent-on light’s existence but not vice-versa, so that matter only has speed to speak of AFTER light has speed), BUT NOTE that THE REASON WHY light’s speed is constant from the POV of matter IS NOT RELEVANT TO ARTHUR EDDINGTON’S OBSERVATIONS, it’s only THE FACT that light’s speed is constant from the POV of matter that is relevant to Arthur Eddington’s observations.
Second step of the refutation of Einstein and Eddington: RECALL that “Einstein’s Train” thought-experiment (see Article 5, Chapter 4), which explained “THE RELATIVITY OF SIMULTANEITY,” was published in 1917, TWO YEARS BEFORE Eddington’s 1919 OBSERVATIONS.
What “Einstein’s Train” thought-experiment reveals is that *because* the speed of light is constant from the POV of matter (see First step of the refutation of Einstein and Eddington), WHEN THE MATTER OF OUR EYES or other light detectors IS *MOVING* RELATIVE-TO THE SOURCE OF THE OBSERVED LIGHT, then OUR OWN MOVEMENT WILL MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO MAKE AN *ACCURATE OBSERVATION* OF THE OBSERVED LIGHT.
Now NOTE that in Arthur Eddington’s experiment, he was on the surface of the earth observing light coming from a distant star, so therefore RELATIVE-TO THE DISTANT STAR (THE LIGHT SOURCE), Eddington was moving in two different ways:
(1) Eddington was MOVING LINEARLY as the earth moved in its orbit;
and
(2) Eddington was ROTATING as the earth rotated on its axis.
Ergo, according to “Einstein’s Train” thought-experiment, THE RELATIVITY OF SIMULTANEITY would make it IMPOSSIBLE for Arthur Eddington to make an ACCURATE OBSERVATION of the starlight!
And the fact that Eddington claimed to have proven something about the General Theory of Relativity with his IMPOSSIBLE-TO-BE-CORRECT OBSERVATIONS—and not only that, Eddington claimed to have OVERTURNED CENTURIES OF NEWTONIAN PHYSICS—combined with the fact that EINSTEIN DIDN’T COMPLAIN ABOUT THE INACCURACY OF EDDINGTON’S OBSERVATIONS, *should have* put BOTH EDDINGTON AND EINSTEIN UNDER SUSPICION of KNOWINGLY AND PURPOSEFULLY AND PREMEDITATEDLY AND IN CONSPIRACY *perpetrating a FRAUD* against *the populace of the world* IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE.
For the past 100+ years—during the reign of the illogical, God-denying spacetime— it’s been like science was stuck in “Jumanji” waiting for someone to roll a five or an eight to “get around” Einstein and get Isaac Newton out of “the jungle” and back in the game.
Now that spacetime is finally eating stardust, we have to be careful not to bring any of Newton’s false moves back into the game.
Article 5, Chapter 7. Momentum, Momentum, Wherefore Art Thou, Momentum?: Houston, We’ve Lost Momentum and Quantum Physics Has Lost Itself!
In this final chapter, we’re going to NOTICE that there’s a HUGE DIFFERENCE between the invalidity of Isaac Newton’s theory of motion and the invalidity of Einstein’s Relativity; we are also going to NOTICE that Quantum Physics pulls an Einstein (an ILLOGICAL RELATIVITY TRICK) and takes Eminem’s advice to “Lose Yourself” literally.
Regarding Isaac Newton’s theory of motion, there’s gravitational motion and non-gravitational motion, and Newton’s theory covered both types of motion.
Newton’s theory of gravity flunked “the vanishing sun test,” and that, as we saw in Article 3, was a massive problem, which Einstein corruptly exploited.
But we can’t say anything more about the TOEWC’s PARTICLE THEORY OF GRAVITY than we’ve said so far (see Article 5, Chapter 6.)
So in this chapter, we’re going to focus the discussion on some of the aspects of Newton’s theory of non-gravitational motion and on the self-destruction of Quantum Physics.
We’ve already seen AND FIXED (in Article 4, Chapter 2 and Chapter 3) the first problem with Newton’s theory of non-gravitational motion, to wit: The failure to EXPLAIN Newton’s First Law of Motion (Galileo’s law of inertia; an object in motion stays in motion with constant speed and direction in the absence of unbalanced external force, F = mass*velocity.)
But we will REVIEW that issue again here, as an introduction some discourse about MOMENTUM and KINETIC ENERGY, before we watch Quantum Physics lose itself.
Zeno: I think I’m getting the picture. I AM NOT GETTING ANYWHERE with Newton’s Laws of Motion. I CANNOT MOVE from Point A to Point B by following Newton’s Laws of Motion because Newton’s Laws of Motion make motion IMPOSSIBLE.
Also Zeno: Still, I want to PRETEND for argument’s sake that I got into motion by first experiencing an external force, which was applied and immediately ceased, and upon force-application I followed Newton’s Third Law of Motion by generating an equal-and-opposite reaction, then I began following Newton’s First Law of Motion (I began traveling with “inertia” at a constant speed in the same direction as the force.)
Still Zeno: Now HERE’S THE PROBLEM I’m about to have: The applied external force that got me moving is long-gone, so WHAT IS THE FORCE that is causing my inertial (constant-velocity) motion, according to Newton’s First Law of Motion?
Newton: There is NO FORCE that causes inertial (constant-velocity) motion.
Zeno and Aristotle in unison:
Zeno: Are you joking?
Newton: No, this is serious business! Since the days of Aristotle in 350-ish BC, no one could find an inertial force, so after awhile everybody stopped thinking about it, and now scientists just tell everybody: “You don’t have to worry about FINDING THE FORCE THAT CAUSES INERTIAL MOVEMENT, because we’ve looked and WE CAN’T FIND IT SO IT PROBABLY DOES NOT EXIST, and in any event WE DON’T NEED IT! All we have to do is THINK ABOUT INERTIAL MOTION (constant-velocity motion) and remember that it always happens according to Newton’s First Law of Motion, which says that: ‘An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and direction UNTIL A NEW UNBALANCED FORCE ACTS ON THE OBJECT.’”
Capiche?
Zeno:
Aristotle: Just to be sure I’m hearing what modern science is saying: Modern science is telling us that inertial motion—which is ACCURATELY DESCRIBED WITH MATH by Newton’s First Law of Motion, F = mv—requires NO FORCE to KEEP THE MOTION GOING?
Newton: Correct.
Aristotle: Then that makes inertial motion—following Newton’s First Law of Motion—IMPOSSIBLE because that’s a description of PERPETUAL MOTION WITHOUT WORK; the work has to be continually performed or else you’re violating the Law of Conservation of Energy by CREATING ENERGY OUT OF NOTHING!
Newton: Don’t forget that Newton’s First Law of Motion is TRUE BY OBSERVATION, so therefore there’s NO MORE FORCE necessary—NO MORE WORK WHATSOEVER MUST BE DONE—to keep an object in motion!
Aristotle: Just because you haven’t found the force doing the work DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE FORCE DOESN’T EXIST! Stop trying to pass-off MATH as LAWS OF PHYSICS and shoot your theory in the arse with a veg-o-matic if that’s the best you’ve got!!
Newton: Can’t we just FORGET ABOUT THAT 2,350-year-old PLOT-HOLE and THINK-ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE?
Zeno: What else should we “move on” to think about instead-of why it’s impossible to move by following your theory of motion?
Newton: Let’s think-about Newton’s Second Law of Motion, i.e., the rate at which your body’s MOMENTUM (momentum = mass*velocity) is changing over time as you move from point A to point B.
Zeno: MOMENTUM, MOMENTUM, WHEREFORE ART THOU, MOMENTUM?
Newton: What are you talking about?
Zeno: What, exactly, is “MOMENTUM”?
Newton: The online Encyclopedia Britannica says that momentum is equivalent to a force required to bring an object to a stop in a unit length of time.
Also Newton: The online encyclopedia Britannica also says that there is a “general law of physics” called “conservation of momentum,” according to which law the “quantity” called “momentum” is “motion,” and the existence of this “quantity” of “motion” guarantees us that “the total momentum of a system remains constant.”
Zeno: WHAT IS A SYSTEM?
Me: [interjecting] I know this one! A system is a “quantity” of “resources” that is “mobilized” by a “general legal entity” pursuant to the principles of law that are followed by the “general legal entity” in such a manner as to guarantee us that “the total liability of the system remains constant.”
Zeno: [to Newton] My dude! We are not fixing the stock market, we are at the starting line of a walk in the park, and to be Frank, the “SYSTEM” jargon sounds suspiciously like what you’re saying about MOMENTUM: It sounds like you’re saying that MOMENTUM is a “quantity” of “motion” that “remains constant in your THOUGHTS,” i.e., wherever you draw an IMAGINARY BOX around a group of “moving” objects, insofar as you know THE *MATHEMATICAL* LAWS OF DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS!
Newton: Well don’t forget about Newton’s Third Law of Motion; it describes actual physical behavior of individual objects.
Zeno: Thank you! And that is my point exactly: According to Newton’s Third Law of Motion, an object gets into motion by reacting to an external applied force, so HOW CAN I APPLY NEWTON’S THIRD LAW OF MOTION TO OBJECTS IN A “SYSTEM”? Trying to do that would destroy TIME and DISTANCE (POSITION) altogether and replace physical Reality with MATH, but MATH can’t cause movement, so therefore when you tell me that “MOMENTUM” is merely “thinking” (math) masquerading as a law of physics (Reality), then you’re saying that your theory of motion makes movement impossible!
Newton: Do you want to talk-about “Kinetic Energy”?
Zeno: Not REALLY, because that is a NON-SPECIFIC TERM! It is ENERGY that is DEVOID OF *A SOURCE*, so it’s impossible RESPOND to it PHYSICALLY! Similar to Momentum, it’s merely a MATHEMATICAL concept NOT A PHYSICAL THING.
FIL Phil: [“Demolition”] Did you take-apart the washroom stall?
Davis: That was my work, yes.
FIL Phil: *Why*?
Davis: That’s a little harder to answer.
Zeno: But the issue isn’t that there’s anything WRONG with “Momentum” or “Kinetic Energy” as INFORMATION; the issue is that INFORMATION IS NOT *A PART* of REALITY that an object in its present location can WORK WITH (the information doesn’t EXPLAIN WHY an object is moving or not moving.) Momentum and Kinetic Energy are MATH. We cannot replace a part of Reality with “thoughts” (MATH) and then write-up a theory of MOTION in which THINKING ABOUT MOVING is the CAUSE OF MOVEMENT. That makes MOTION IMPOSSIBLE, because once your theory of motion loses-touch with physical Reality, then you cannot avoid THINKING about the INFINITE DIVISIBILITY PARADOX, and you cannot solve that sucker by THINKING, you’ve got to find a PHYSICAL PART OF REALITY to get every body MOVING. To repeat: There’s nothing WRONG with Momentum or Kinetic Energy as INFORMATION, but they are not *PARTS OF REALITY*—they are not Laws of Physics, they are THOUGHTS (MATH)—and that is an ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM that science is ignoring.
Newton: Do you want to continue talking about ELEPHANT NUMBER TWO 💩?
Zeno: Quantum Physics, aka Quantum Mechanics?
Newton: I am UNCERTAIN about the PRINCIPLE to which you are referring?
Google:
Me: RECALL that in the TOEWC, THERE IS NO UNCERTAINTY ABOUT A PARTICLE’S SPEED OR POSITION, because PARTICLES DO NOT TRAVEL LIKE WAVES, they travel like massive objects. A particle has the constant experience of the force of mass (Fmass), which causes the particle to express Wave-Particle Duality, BUT A PARTICLE DOES NOT MOVE AS A WAVE! Rather, a particle *applies* physical force in one direction (an Eternal particle spins right round or left round like a top) as a result of thrusting an equal magnitude of wave-energy in the opposite direction along the same line.
Zeno: “The Uncertainty Principle” of Quantum Physics raises UNCERTAINTY ABOUT DISTANCE (object position) to the status of A LAW OF PHYSICS, which says (and here I quote the timeless wisdom of physics professor Larry Gopnik in the movie “A Serious Man”): “The Uncertainty Principle: It proves that we can’t ever really know what’s going on. But even though you can’t figure anything out, you will be responsible for it on the mid-term.”
Newton: Is “The Uncertainty Principle” the work of A SERIOUS MAN of science almost 300 years after my demise?
Zeno: Yes, and you haven’t even met the PHOTONS in Quantum Physics yet!
Newton: No, I have not, but if you can bag them, then you’ll have enough elephants in the room for your own THREE-RING CIRCUS 🎪.
Zeno: Don’t look at me, just watch Quantum Physics LOSE ITSELF: See “Physicists Unveil First-Ever Photo of Quantum Entanglement”
Einstein: [poking his head through the big-top curtain and sticking-out his tongue] That is some spooky action at a distance right there!
Newton: I don’t understand the humor - can we REPEAT what’s so frightening about the photon theory, which is at the heart of Quantum Physics?
Wikipedia: [“Photon”] “A photon…is an elementary particle that is a quantum of the electromagnetic field, including electromagnetic radiation such as light and radio waves, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. Photons are massless particles that can move no faster than the speed of light…./….The modern photon concept originated during the first two decades of the 20th century with the work of Albert Einstein….To explain the photoelectric effect, Einstein introduced the idea that light itself is made of discrete units of energy. In 1926, Gilbert N. Lewis popularized the term PHOTON for these energy units.”
Zeno: [to Newton] If mass and energy are equivalent, then how can a massless thing carry force?
Newton:
Zeno: Can the speed of light be relative-to itself?
Me: No, the speed of light is a constant; it’s a singular thing, so it cannot be relative-to itself (see Article 5, Chapter 5.)
Zeno: Can two things become “ENTANGLED” WITH EACH OTHER without being RELATIVE-TO EACH OTHER?
Me: No, because entanglement implies mutual dependence, and mutual dependence only exists with MUTUALLY-RELATIVE things (and again, it is nonsense to say that a thing can be relative-to itself.)
Zeno: Thank you! “PHOTONS” DO NOT EXIST BECAUSE “PHOTONS” ARE DEFINED AS BEING CARRIERS FOR THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE *AND* AS BEING RELATIVE-TO EACH OTHER (capable of becoming “ENTANGLED” with each other), and Quantum Physics doesn’t exist without PHOTONS, so Quantum Physics has DESTROYED ITSELF by telling us that PHOTONS BECOME ENTANGLED.
Me: And on a separate and FINAL NOTE, we know as a corollary to God’s existence (see Article 1) that THERE’S NO WAY FOR MATTER TO EXIST WITHOUT SAPs BEING CREATED FROM LUMEYNES, and SAPs are mutually-relative to each other—that’s how ATOMS form—which SOUNDS A LOT LIKE ENTANGLEMENT OF LUMEYNES! So I want to be clear that THERE MUST BE A WAY FOR LUMEYNES, WHICH ARE NOT RELATIVE-TO EACH OTHER, TO “GIVE BIRTH” TO MUTUALLY-RELATIVE SAPs that are subsequently organized into atoms, and I’ve got the job of explaining how that happens.
In joy,
Frank