The fundamental universe revisited

An exacting approach to the scientific understanding of cosmological reality


I have identified what appears to be the natural continuum force of the universe. This force is irreducible and experiential across all frames with the exception of those relating to electricity and magnetism. I have entitled this force “primordial gravitation”. Primordial gravitation has the condition and influence of ether, including the effects of ether. The concurrent relationship between the primordial gravitational force and ether influences the condition for the creation of particles. This means primordial energy also informationally influences the conditions for energy transfer into matter, as well as their associated units of fields. These fields can be explained and demonstrated.


Recently I completed writing a major science work relating to new ideas that I have created in respect to more efficiently, accurately and decisively describe cosmological reality at every possible level. I have selected different sections and topics from this work to share with you in order to give you a reasonable idea about my line of thinking with physics related material today. I have not changed many of my basic science related ideas over time and I have not done so at the present time either. What I have done is create a new scientific descriptive methodology that allows me to more effectively describe and conceptually justify my wide spread ideas relating to not only the universe but also the human condition. I feel far more confident in being able to introduce you to my wider ranging science and philosophical ideas via this new medium of information sharing that I have created. However, my new presentational methodology is more abstract than what you may be accustomed to. Unfortunately this is the down side of my new approach to understanding the wider world around us and what it may mean in all of our lives.

My original paper will not be posted online. The ideas that are contained in this blog today should be seen as superseding other science related material that I have posted otherwise you may become confused and disappointed. As I pointed out above generally speaking my fundamental ideas about reality have not changed. If you do elect to compare some of my original ideas with the content of this blog you may find them to be complimentary to each other but from a different approach. My primary paper is entitled ‘A fundamental description of the universe and its associated workings’. ‘The indivisible continuum’.

From this point onward I have incorporated text my original work into this blog.


I believe that most of contemporary physics theories are missing a critical factor as they attempt to develop a universal theory of everything. I suggest that many mainstream physicists have overlooked what I believe are the two dominating characteristics of the universe. It is my opinion that the universe (the absolute quantity of cosmological reality as we understand it to be) has two separate divisible (DIVIS) and indivisible (INDIV) energy type quantities as well as associated sub- units of energy influences relating to these quantities. I believe that these two fundamental quantities physically and metaphysically mean something with respect our being able to better understand the holistic universe around us and also assisting us to better understand ourselves as well. INDIV and DIVIS could be irreducible and reducible too. My hypothesis is loosely built upon the ideas of the twelfth century philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas but my blog today is not a religious story.

Chart one below demonstrates what I mean by these words:

Reality is in two distinguishable parts:


1: Symbolizes all units of information and influences in universal reality as being indivisible (INDIV).

2: Symbolizes all units of information and influences in universal reality as being divisible (DIVIS).

3: INDIV and DIVIS meet together to complete the three dimensional experiential reality within which we live our lives.

The quote immediately following the note below will provide you a guide to my wider ideas relating to reality physics as well as provide you with clues as to how best to approach different segments I have copied and posted into this blog. My principle intent today is to introduce you to what I believe is an important new tool for scientists to employ with respect to more effectively and efficiently approach their own scientific research methodologies. I apologise that because I have copied an pasted from my other work as I have not only is this work incomplete in respect to my other work but it does not follow a natural continuum either as I earlier mentioned.

Note: You will find throughout this presentation that my science related ideas and statements are not necessarily always in accordance with main stream science meaning and usage. This is because I am a philosopher of science and not a physicist. I apologise for any inconvenience this may cause to my readers.



 There is a single quantity of information (INDIV) that dominates cosmological reality which includes all life forms as we understand them to be. I also term this single quantity of information as primordial awareness. I refer to this title in many of my existing science blogs.

 There is an additional quantity of information that exists in a concurrent relationship with INDIV and this quantity is DIVIS. DIVIS cannot exist without INDIV.

 Cosmological reality can be explained by this concurrent relationship between INDIV and DIVIS.

 The INDIV and DIVIS quantities can be incorporated within any inertia continuum (foundation) provided their respective conditions and influences (forces) are interpreted, segregated and scientifically applied ethically and correctly in relationship to the stated conditions of the model itself.

 The concurrent relationship between INDIV and DIVIS is not only applicable to our universe but also seems to be pertinent to all other universes and dimensions as well.

Chart two below demonstrates what I mean by these words:

Ourselves and our behavior in relationship to primordial awareness (all that is)


1: Primordial awareness (wider INDIV reality).

2: The Big Bang.

3: Primordial universe (a quantity).

4: INDIV quantity relating to the wider universe.

5: DIVIS quantity relating to the wider universe.

6: The combined INDIV and DIVIS quantities of the universe from which inherent conditions and influences emerge to create change or otherwise do something of every conceivable nature. These possibilities to do something are units of possibilities as well as any resultant condition or influence resulting there from within the universe. These words mean all units of activity within the universe are connected to each other through different fields of quantum conditions and influences (entanglement).

7: Ourselves as units, including sub-units, to do something such as our body organs and INDIV units to think. Furthermore DIVIS consciousness does something that causes subsequent behavior. DIVIS consciousness can be considered and as such is divisible.

A summary of what I believe that the INDIV and DIVIS theory achieves

1. It is a story that appears to fundamentally and reliably bring together all the quantities, units, forces and influences that can conceivably exist within the universe. The story could conceivably also include the conditions and influences that existed before the Big Bang as well.

2. It describes not only how the universe works but also why it works in the manner that it does.

3. It demonstrates that there are two primary types of scientific causation.

4. It defines and describes a continuum that our universe could conceivably be built upon, and where the inherent energy of the universal system might internally emanate from.

5. It demonstrates how and why the universe is a random system.

6. It explains and describes the relationship between the smallest and the most trivial phenomena and the largest in the universe as well. This includes the method and means by which these quantities and units are interconnected, as well as their associated influences and effects.

7. It intimately describes the human condition at every conceivable level, including the manner in which we make decisions and subsequently behave.

8. It explains and describes why there is such a deep and irreconcilable division which persists to this day between the metaphysical scientific predictions of Quantum Mechanics and Einstein’s Special Relativity model.

9. It is an instrument of instruction that I believe most people could at least partly identify with and believe, in order to form their own views about cosmological reality and its relationship with the human condition, and perhaps wider culture as well.

10. It provides a wide and diverse range of philosophical and scientific information that can define the wider universe and provide the informational base upon which inestimable numbers of shorter investigative stories can be written about.

11. It seems to provide sound grounds for both scientists and philosophers to develop new ideas and theories regarding the nature and origins of the universe.

What my theory does not achieve

From a contemporary mainstream scientific perspective it proves nothing! It is a concept document. This does not mean that my ideas are wrong or phenomenon’s of the type that I have introduced herein do not exist or are worthy of reader consideration. I see my work in progress endeavour today as being a stand-alone fundamental reality theory that stands on its own merits until such time as others can demonstrate a more descriptive and compelling theory. Also see my notes at the end of this blog with respect to this subject.

1. General description

As I stated earlier, I believe that that cosmological reality exists in two parts. I have described these two parts as being quantities. I see these dual quantities as being divisible (DIVIS) and indivisible (INDIV), which not only mean something but also influence units of cosmological information within themselves and each other. Cosmological information is all information and influences that may be related to DIVIS and INDIV. I believe that it is this informational relationship that provides a comprehensive and meaningful understanding of the universe, and insight to into some of the great related scientific mysteries. The types of ideas that you will find include…

A. INDIV may be able to be considered as a cosmological constant because it never decays and so it is a constant everlasting cosmological effect. It provides energy for all phenomena in the universe and its associated effects is ether. We can only ever talk about INDIV as the universal continuum because it is also the force of nature. We can perceive DIVIS as the temporal continuum. We can only talk about INDIV and DIVIS together as information. Some is knowable and some is not, but this does not mean that it is not there.

B. Causation is not restricted to DIVIS units. It applies to INDIV units as well. The concurrent relationship between both is the life force of the universe as we can best perceive it to be.

C. Cosmological reality (the absolute quantity in physics) is about our understanding the relationship between INDIV and DIVIS influences on each other as well as themselves. This relationship relates to energy types, densities, averages and ratios with each other in every conceivable manner in an absolute time continuum.

At this stage, I feel that there are questions that you should consider

Do you think:-

I. That the universe can be separated into two clearly distinguishable quantities. What may I have missed by creating this hypothesis?

II. That the unit system which I have conceived, associated with these two quantities, are representative of universal phenomena at every conceivable level relative to both the INDIV and DIVIS quantities?

III. That I have appropriately nominated the INDIV quantity as being the dominant quantity because I incorporated important phenomena within it such as nature, gravity, the speed of light, intuition and the like into this quantity?

IV. That it makes a significant difference to the validity of my wider hypothesis if I have erred along the way by incorrectly appropriating units to either the INDIV or DIVIS quantity. Can the law of averages apply?

You will find a list of references pertinent to the contents of this blog at the conclusion of this presentation.

2. The relationship between quantities, units, influences and energy. This includes a description of the energy forces at play at the period in cosmic history of the Big Bang

I believe that the metaphorical connecting nodes of this universal relationship between DIVIS and INDIV and their associated units are timeless NOWs. But this is not always necessarily so. I discuss these NOWs in section three. The INDIV quantity may also be seen as metaphysical quantity. I see the DIVIS and INDIV quantities, together with their units of associated energy types, as being in a dynamically fluid concurrent relationship that is mostly unpredictable and random. This unpredictable and random behaviour within the ether effect of primordial gravity could be as is demonstrated in physics circles today. I argue that DIVIS and INDIV influences contain both knowable and unknowable information and so their combined influences of energy cannot be scientifically tested by observation or experiment. However, those that are dominantly DIVIS would need to allow for at least some degree of INDIV hidden entanglement (some physicists say hidden variables), or similar indeterminable universal interference. An example of universal interference is the cosmological influences affecting molecular contraction relating to movement of rods within time dilation theory.

This means that DIVIS and INDIV are representative of units of energy relating to both themselves individually as well as to each other. They mean something worthy of future understanding and investigation. This ‘something’ can also mean communication across the width of the universe in an instant. This force’s behaviour is similar to that in entanglement theory in particle physics, where it has been demonstrated by experiment that the spin of one particle can influence the spin of another particle on the other side of the universe instantly. In other words my INDIV and DIVIS theory means that it is possible for anything to happen across all units of the universe which includes our lives. This idea is similar to the phenomenon of wave particle collapse as a result of observation in particle physics theory. I feel that both phenomena are related.

This inter-relationship between DIVIS and INDIV can be likened to a neural network, and at points where DIVIS and INDIV meet or cross each other, these points can be seen as nodes that have specific informational meaning. Knowable and divisible information emanating from DIVIS includes time, patterns of light and associated densities of light, motion, consciousness (because it can be rationalised and contemplated) and the splitting of an apple into two separate halves. Unknowable but describable INDIV information includes units relating to the origins of electricity, the origins of magnetism, the speed of light (one way in a vacuum), intuition (awareness), thought, gravity and ether in General Relativity theory. These units are to be included with the all-important units of nature and life as we understand and experience them to be. This combined information of INDIV and DIVIS, with associated meaning and influences can then be described as being units of cosmological activity and process along the lines I talked about above. I believe that if DIVIS and INDIV and other related units of influence within the universe did not exist in a concurrent but mutually dependent relationship and ratio with each other, the universe as we understand it to be would not make sense. Furthermore it would probably not exist at all

I say that INDIV primordial gravity wave motion relating to this network (the analogical neural network) at some point, probably before the Big Bang, began to progressively generate DIVIS patterns of unit time of time relating to both DIVIS motion as well as the overall universal unit network which is our universe. This is the universe containing both INDIV and DIVIS units. I suggest it is from this absolute quantity (our universe) that this DIVIS unit of time became knowable and understandable and a unit to assist us, through our curiosity, to progressively context and plan all manner of human endeavour. Clocks that we devised then became the instruments to help us to recognise and explain our existence around cosmological DIVIS time. This is by way of units of time in relationship to movement of objects. Furthermore, I suggest it is from this position that the divisible DIVIS time that we are familiar with today (space/time) progressively became the time/motion reference frame that most physicists have adopted in their theories today. This is the reference frame that scientists tell us is the appropriate manner for us to context everyday reality. Because of this, we have become accustomed to planning and living our lives accordingly. (At the close of the nineteenth century, Lorentz absolute time ether theory was generally seen to be the appropriate continuum inertia frame. Object movement in timeless space was then recorded differently).

As I have indicated I also believe that these same INDIV and DIVIS influences supported the creation of a inertia (the continuum foundation of the universe itself) from which the development of the universe took place, then developed and evolved in the manner that it has and continues to do so. It also seems clear to me that both INDIV and DIVIS influences created the conditions for the Big Bang to occur. This is both before (in INDIV-virtual form) and after the Big Bang in real form. All forces involved collectively created the conditions of energy types, averages, densities and ratios between both DIVIS and INDIV conditions to occur at a particular timeless NOW to create such a Big Bang explosion. The word NOW is important. Remember we are talking about a period in reality space where clock units of time did not exist. Conditions relating to the explosion were simultaneous and as such the DIVIS explosion related only to its own explosion reference frame which included forces existing prior to the explosion itself as I mentioned above.

The creation of preon, quark and gluon particles took place about this period too. These three particle energies are the foundational forces that created DIVIS three-dimensional universal matter. At the indivisible point of explosion a separate and diverse range of electromagnetic field forces complimented these three energy forces of particles. When combined these combined forces contributed to the extent of the massive violence of the explosion by way of their respective DIVIS and INDIV unit energies. The initiating energy for the Big Bang was INDIV energy derivative from the forces, quantities and influences already existing prior to the Big Bang in a virtual DIVIS form in respect to a four dimensional (absolute time) random energy continuum. Keep in mind the respective ratios, densities and averages of these forces played a critical role in this Big Bang event as well. This is why such virtual-DIVIS energy prior to the Big Bang continues to manifest itself today as being primordial noise (cosmic background radiation). It is a four dimensional absolute continuum where nothing is relative except unto itself.

3. Nature and where we fit into this bigger picture

Nature embraces both DIVIS and INDIV units that are common for us all to experience, sense, and see. As I pointed out earlier, I see primordial gravity as being an informational INDIV unit of influence and so you may assume such energy exists relating to influences between both DIVIS and INDIV. I will later explain the concurrent relationship of primordial gravity with undetectable ether pixel energy. Major objects push and pull gravity waves are also INDIV. This is because they travel at C. My concept of their being primordial gravity waves travel beyond C. I believe that we are born with both DIVIS and INDIV features and influences and this means that we are no different from other influences as represented by animals, fish and birds. By this I mean influences that originated from nature (INDIV) in the first place. I argue that the only difference between our own twin influences of DIVIS and INDIV compared to other species is in respect of unit energy types, ratios, averages and densities (degrees of influence) between all of us. I also suggest from these words that as we age and become more widely experienced, the twin influences of DIVIS and INDIV in our lives change in relation to ratios, averages and densities as well, at every conceivable level.

I see the human brain and consciousness as being divisible DIVIS units which can sometimes be measured and tested. An example of this is the Global Consciousness Movement’s activities relating to global atmospheric disturbances (waves) emanating from events such as the collapse of the twin towers in New York and mass bombings that periodically take place somewhere in the world. I suggest that it is these types of both positive and negative influences that impact upon our mind, consciousness and brain relationship globally. These negative and positive influences are the same INDIV and DIVIS influences that cause us to think and act in the manner that we do, however subtle and influential they may be. It should be remembered that Sheldrake’s morphogenic field theory demonstrates the ability of plants and other organisms to influence each other as this ability is a natural part of INDIV nature and so is INDIV intuition as well.

Chart three below demonstrates what I mean by these words:

Our relationship with DIVIS and INDIV:

This illustration also demonstrates how we could not exist without the INDIV influence in our lives.


1: INDIV represents the dominant quantity of informational units of reality.

2: DIVIS is in a concurrent but junior partnership with INDIV informational units of reality.

3: DIVIS and INDIV come together to represent how we live in an experience that combined DIVIS and INDIV units of influences of reality.

4: Ourselves experiencing DIVIS and INDIV in reality.

4. NOWs and how they impact upon our everyday lives as well as the wider cosmological universe

I see both DIVIS and INDIV units of information as being an instantaneous successions of NOWs. NOWs are also units of INDIV influence. Because these NOWs are not related to clock time (they are related to INDIV absolute time) they are a collective representation of all that has ever been and will be with regard to DIVIS and INDIV units of influence within the universe. The universe can also be considered as being a NOW because ‘something’ brought about its existence in the first place and we can never know for certain whether this ‘something’ was a DIVIS influence, an INDIV influence or a combination of both as I have suggested above. These universal units of DIVIS and INDIV can then be seen as a collective representation of all that has historically been, is, or will ever be into the future via a timeless succession of here and now “NOWs”. These include historical [virtual] NOWs before the Big Bang.

When I talk about future NOWs I mean NOWs that are representative of life units of influences that we are either hopeful about, or neutral about, or fear completely. That is, future events may be positive and joyful family activities like Christmas time, or events like sitting by a lake fishing and relaxing, thinking about nothing in particular. NOWs also include negative events such as the imminent death of someone you care for. NOWs therefore are also a representation of their own history and also all conceivable possibilities to do something NOWs. These latter possibilities are NOWs which we may never experience or seek to exploit in respect to any given day or time NOW. These words are akin to Quantum Mechanics theory that says every conceivable for possible to happen is on the table can happen when it is observed. I suggest that this also means life experiences as well. This means that we can change our minds at random by no other means than a whim or a short term distraction whilst we are engaged in some sort of activity or another.

I believe that the naturally present DIVIS and INDIV influences, together with their subsequent effects relating to this infinite continuum of NOW’s in the universe also implies that the universe is not only aware (INDIV) of itself but it is also conscious (DIVIS) of itself. This is at every conceivable level as well. This idea then implies that the universe not only has its own mind (as seemingly represented in physics by entanglement theory) but it can also influence all manner of DIVIS and INDIV influences within itself too. This set of influences may explain the random nature of the universe and how it manifests itself to observers in the manner that it does. I also believe that the universe has its own separate INDIV and DIVIS memories, which could mean that when we die our INDIV selves (souls if you like) can reconnect with the INDIV souls of deceased persons. Because INDIV is also indivisible information, this idea seems to have merit for me. Both souls return to nature after experiencing their DIVIS (organic) earthly experience.

I also suggest that we live in both DIVIS time and INDIV time simultaneously, and that the metaphysical connection node for us between both times is a NOW unit too. As I have said earlier, DIVIS units exist in this same type of relationship. This means that all past, present and future are always connected to this inter-time node. So then, we move step by step with each other metaphorically either side of the connection node (but in reality simultaneously) at all times as though we are part of a timeless movie. Our DIVIS selves cannot of course know about or understand this but our intuitive INDIV selves can. I see this inability to do so as being no more than a inter dimensional one. By this I mean between separate DIVIS and INDIV conditions and influences respectively which could be between a third and fourth dimension. This ability can manifest itself in unusual and strange ways such as clairvoyance, alleged astral travel, out of body experiences, near death experiences, deep meditation and prayer. Other simple ways are knowing someone is looking at you when you are not looking at them, and knowing when someone has died before you have been told about it.

5. The role of observers within the DIVIS and INDIV model

I feel that observers cannot remove themselves from the act of observation and experiment because they are inseparably a part of the frame of reference they are observing, which is itself a NOW. Observers are not only a unit of NOWs, but they are also influenced by DIVIS’s and INDIV’s NOWs at any given event they are observing. These events that they are observing not only include participating individuals in any given event as NOWs but also these same individuals with their inherent and diverse personal NOWs as well. By this I mean that their own INDIV and DIVIS NOWs relating to their life history thus far. This NOW influence relationship at any given event, including lab experiments, also includes the wider universal NOW. I am suggesting that observers are merely an elementary line in the wider evolving analogical barcode of all possibilities to do something in the universe that I described a little earlier. Observers are therefore are an irremovable part of the DIVIS and INDIV universal cosmic whole, and so their act of observation could be prejudicial to the authenticity of the event itself. This seems to be in accord with the fact that when quantum wave collapse occurs when physicists observe an experiment such as if a cat is dead or alive or not. This is physicists Schrödinger’s analogy relating to his thought experiment involving a cat in a sealed box. Schrödinger devised this theory in order to explain the flawed interpretation of quantum superposition in physics as to at what point can it be scientifically determined if the cat in the sealed box is dead or not. As I discussed above from my physics DIVIS and INDIV perspective the analogical cat is always dead and alive at the same time but of course it does not know it. Nor do the observing physicists because they are all located in the same timeless NOW as the cat. Furthermore in my INDIV and DIVIS hypothesis they are all part of the universal continuum of NOW’S simultaneously in relation to clock unit measurement of time. These words imply that as individuals we are cosmologically INDIV’s and DIVIS’S at the same time but like the cat we do not know it.

6. Why the indivisible quantity is the dominant quantity within the universe

I believe that the universe relates to an INDIV inertia continuum that is, from a relativity theory perspective, an unknowable and therefore a metaphysical INDIV quantity. Relativity theory rejects metaphysical phenomena as part of its universal modelling. However, with INDIV, ether theory type models such as the Lorentz electron model is the continuum upon which the universe evolved in the first place, and how it seems to work in the manner that it does. I support ether type theories and my Awareness Model of Reality physics is loosely a representation of this. You will see where I discuss my theory in section six of this blog.

I believe that DIVIS quantities cannot exist without a pre-existing INDIV quantity. This INDIV quantity needs to influence itself and its associated DIVIS units. DIVIS units cannot influence INDIV units. It is for this reason at the outset of this presentation I stated that the universe has two quantities, which includes their associated units. For this reason the primary divisible quantity, manifesting itself via INDIV units of influence is the dominant influence in the universe. This is accentuated by the five points that I have outlined in the introduction.

7. Why the universe is nothing

A story about the Big Bang and what happened from there

In the first instance I will talk to you in general terms. This may help you to better context some of the more complex physics ideas that I will share with you a little later herein. I believe that it was, incomprehensibly to most people, an indivisible (INDIV) four dimensional Primordial Awareness condition that influenced the creation of the universe in indivisible absolute INDIV time. This is as I suggested a little earlier. Primordial Awareness is an abstract ether like state that I conceived that I believe influences all things in all places in INDIV holistic reality time circumstances. This includes other universes and dimensions as well. I believe that phenomena is created, maintained and destroyed by differing energy types, densities, averages and ratios. This same diverse energy relationship is also pertinent to quantum, sub-quantum metaphysical and unknowable cosmological information that is yet to be discovered. Unknowable and INDIV cosmological information conditions and influences include intuition, thoughts, out of body experiences, how did gravity come into existence and what is the origins of electricity and magnetism.

Gluon particles are an important INDIV particle information as well. You will soon find why this is the case. Gluons have no internal structure yet at the same time they hold the universe together. A more advanced science description of gluons can be found here. With regards to unknowable and indivisible information, such information can be considered to be imaginary and or virtual such as the existence of preon particles. Preon particles are also particles that mathematics say exist but they have not been detected yet. Preons are alleged to be one of the essential sub atomic particles related to the creation of quarks. This same mathematical mystery applies to tachyon and dybbuk particles that can allegedly travel beyond the speed of light which also have not been detected yet. There are many others as well. Divisible DIVIS cosmological information is related to phenomenon that can be reduced in its energy type influences in some way and would include such simple things as cutting and apple in half. What I am saying above is that if you have knowledge about sub quantum metaphysical physics these types of mysteries are not unusual at all. Metaphysical entanglement in particle physics is another such phenomenon as well. Often they are referred to as non-local conditions and influences.

I suggest that it is from this diverse range of cosmological information that the energy force type for the creation of the universe occurred. Only energy of some type existed at the immediate beginning of the Big Bang explosion. I refer to this energy as being virtual energy. I have cited intuition and thoughts as unknowable information above because I believe that the wider cosmological reality from which all universes and dimensions emerged is information that is not only aware of itself but it is also aware of all conditions and influences within itself as well. By this I mean in my concept of Primordial Awareness absolute-time. My ideas relating to primordial awareness energy is an INDIV energy type condition that can create INDIV effect conditions such as was needed to influence the Big Bang explosion. In respect to INDIV energy all conceivable possibilities to do something is conceivable. DIVIS effect relates to phenomenon that is not INDIV such as the cutting of the apple. This means that there are two different universal conditions that are capable of engendering conditions of influences of some kind throughout the universe.

I believe that the explosion of the Big Bang created not only quarks and gluons but also the absolute time conditions of primordial gravity. Primordial informational gravity is weak so it is very difficult to detect, sometimes not at all. I say that the primordial gravity, quark and gluon influences created the informational universal condition of a metaphorical carpet of ether across an ever expanding universe. In other words they created the effects of ether. I believe that all “things” in the universe have a particle nature and this includes gluons that have no internal structure. As I stated above the evolution of the universe needs gluons. There are eight different energy types related to gluons and six energy types in relating to quarks. Gluons and quarks are absolutely inseparable and this is why gluons are often referred to as universal cosmic glue. Furthermore gluons can exchange forces and influences within themselves as well. When one combines the inherent energy of primordial gravitation with these fourteen combined conditions of gluons and quark units of energy I suggest that this collective energy condition is the inherent energy condition of the universe. This collective energy manifests itself upon ever aspect of the universe in both DIVIS and INDIV ways as I discussed earlier. It influences itself in a DIVIS and INDIV manner as well. Particles can move between these conditions at will. This relationship is an entangled one in as much that it is a random relationship of units of energy of these combined fifteen different fields of energy (primordial gravity, gluons and quarks). These fields of energy are in an ever changing density, average and ratio with each other and this is why the universe is unpredictably random as physicists know it to be. You and I are beings that are being similarly affected by this dynamic primordial gravity ether condition. You would realise this if you stop to consider your own DIVIS and INDIV units of energy types and influences.

Also see additional information that I have provided at the end of this section relating to the above paragraph.

In respect to these words I see this ether effect as being both the defining force in nature but also as well as the inertia continuum of the universe as well. I see the informational primordial gravity as being the influence that created a second condition of push and pull gravity as related to larger objects such as planets and similar large objects in space. Electrical and magnetic forces also separately emanated from the Big Bang explosion to create a single electromagnetic field and associated radiation that concurrently travels at C with primordial gravity travelling faster than it beyond C. Over an indeterminable period the Big Bang electromagnetic field influenced the creation of immeasurable numbers of sub fields which included those in relationship to the creation of light and the two types of gravity that I have cited. I have discussed my concept of primordial gravity is an INDIV density wave condition that not only has a concurrent relationship with diverse numbers of electromagnetic fields but it influences the density, ratio and averages of light mass emanating there from these fields in relationship to different universal conditions at any given time and location across the universe. Keep these words in mind in respect to what follows.

You will see from my description of this diverse range of energy influences that primordial gravity, quarks, gluons and electromagnetic fields are additionally representative of the strong force in the universe as described by my concept of a universal and immobile ether. (The causal effect of primordial gravity). Metaphysical (structuralist INDIV) preons and INDIV gluons together with quarks and electromagnetic fields are the combinations of energy that make up protons, neutrons and electrons in different averages, densities and ratios with each other. These diverse conditions of energy can be seen as being like the foot print of all DIVIS conditions and influences across the universe. Because these DIVIS conditions and influences (units of energy) are derivative of the INDIV condition of primordial gravity influenced ether as discussed above, these combined conditions and influences describe the universal whole of the universe at every conceivable level. From these words I postulate that my concept of an ether field, that incorporates primordial gravity, detects the presence of individual planets and then guides push and pull gravity into the appropriate range and types of fields that maintain the universal stability of motion between objects that prevent undue universal chaos, but not its inherent wave randomness in respective to wide ranging inter acting fields of information.

I believe that the other allied important matter relating to these words about this guiding ether field is that it can be seen as the same guiding field that David Bohm postulated existed within his Holomovement pilot wave theory of particle physics. I also claim that this ether gravity field detects the gravity forces between two or more masses of objects which include planets hundreds of light years away from each other. The reason why this can occur is that because my concept of primordial gravity which is in a concurrently relationship to the ether, moves in absolute time. This implies that the relationship between the mass of all objects, at any absolute distance and at any distance in relationship to unit clock time, can be mathematical calculated in respect to their differing densities, ratios and averages.

I have discussed the powerful role that gluons play in respect to holding the building blocks of matter together and in turn demonstrate how they work as well. This is more especially so as they holds neutrons and protons together in a stable relationship in respect to its glue like relationship with quarks. This means that gluons are also conjunctional INDIV stabilisers of my primordial gravity ether system which I see as being critical for the stability and consistency of the universe generally but not its associated diverse range of electromagnetic fields which are an energy force unto themselves. As I suggested earlier I believe that gluons are the analogical life blood of the universe and if they did not exist with the energy and conditions type that they do the universe would not exist and nor would we within it as well. This is with the exception of electric and electromagnetic fields. Particles such as quarks would not exist either which are one of the foundational influences in respect to the creation of matter. The additional mystery about gluons is that although they are now accepted in physics as being elementary particles their microscopic structure remains unknown and furthermore it is considered to be indivisible but it can change influences within itself as I discussed earlier. The other interesting thing is that there is no maths to support gluons from its basic physic law but I have read that some of its properties can be calculated.

The influences and conditions of a diverse range of energy types that I have discussed above demonstrate what I consider to be the dynamic and experiential conditions of the universe as a whole. This includes us as well. This universe is what I term as being a primordial awareness quantity. The mysterious INDIV and DIVIS forces at play before the Big Bang took place in a separate and dynamic state of Primordial Awareness and time quantity. I suggest that this means that there is a continuum of primordial awareness across all reference frames of wider reality as well. I believe that the Euler’s equation in mathematics demonstrates why such a notion may make sense. This is because it embraces the transcendental square root of minus one (-1) as presented by i in this equation:

eiπ + 1 = 0 (I acknowledge that the i and the π should be elevated to represent “to the power of”)

This symbolic mathematical symbol represents all possibilities whatsoever within the frame of reference of reality (what ever this may mean) at any given time, place or circumstance.

You will see from my words that gluons are the life blood of the universe. In closing this section I remind you again that without gluons nothing relating to matter and its associated influences could exist in the universe. It is hard to imagine that electromagnetic fields could exist on their own somehow. The microscopic structure of gluons remains unknown. There is no maths physics to support gluons in relationship to physics laws. This means that gluons do not physically exist and as such they are are permanently INDIV (metaphysical) units of energy. However, this INDIV energy holds the universe together. This means that without gluons for all intents and purposes the universe would be nothing. This further means that the INDIV nothingness of gluons are also at least in part responsible for the creation of the universe as well as being almost fully responsible for its associated maintenance and seeming infinite cohesion and associated stability. Another way of saying this is that a physics influence of nothing created another universe of the same nothing and as such the universe can be physically described as being INDIV nothing.

Reference to item seven above.

The following quotation is an extract from my blog Reality with a matrix which was posted in July 2017. I would write these words differently today but never  the less I believe that my readers may better understand the debate that I am presenting to you above if you do. I also strongly urge you to read the associated links to this blog as well because my ideas are supported by credible physics theories.


“Within my blog I regularly talk about both entanglement and non-local phenomena. Non-locality in science has metaphysical characteristics as well, but physicists are prepared to accept this within their theoretical physical models. I have found that there is widespread disagreement within the scientific community as to what entanglement and non-locality really mean. In order to help authenticate this blog, I will clarify my position on these topics for you. You will find this discussion in the reference section of this blog.

Imagine ether to be a seamless parameter free three-dimensional tray of pure clear jelly. [Albeit it being an invisible and difficult to detect field of immobile gas. By this I mean that it is like non-local phenomena that from a layperson’s perspective may be seen as being imaginary]. The jelly is compressible and under certain conditions waves may occur. These waves then progressively move upwards to the surface of the jelly and in the process create their own independent energy along the way.

The jelly must not break the motion of material phenomena passing through it. The upper levels of the jelly are less dense than the lower levels of the jelly. This variation of density in the jelly creates pressure forces throughout the jelly that include the creation of velocity. It is these collective forces that not only permeate the holistic tray of jelly but also influence it as well.

These combined micro and macro phenomena [field forces] that at a distance create non-uniform contact behaviour [interaction] with each other. This is as though it is a neural network entangled within an analogical frame of reference of primordial self-awareness or ether. It is the compressible nature of the ether itself, in a static state, that causes this non-unified random behaviour. It is also because of this non-unified behaviour that the jelly [ether] has a preferred frame of reference. This means that the ether frame is one that collectively and randomly embraces time, motion, velocity, energy and particle size. It is from this non-unified contact behaviour that elementary particles emerge. Elementary electricity and magnetism also emerge. This also means that the holistic [macro] nature of space itself is also in a state of average at any given time and place as well. [Is in some sort of uniformity]. This means it is always fluctuating but not necessarily for the same reasons. Furthermore this means that the ether space has both predictable and non-predictable random characteristics.

These ideas seem consistent with the randomness theory associated with both Einstein’s special relativity theory and Lorentz’s 1904 ether/electron theory. These models are mathematically similar to each other, but they vary in terms of the question of the movement of objects respectively therein. In other words, I am suggesting that my words in this blog today may provide scientists with a few additional clues as to how both these physics models may be finally reconciled. By this I mean via a structurally different ether theory that may never have been considered before. [Albeit being an elementary one].

Furthermore, these differing characteristics of the ether, apart from creating the waves that create gravity, are also separate fields in their own right. Which means gravity itself is a field as well. This in turn, in a macro sense, attracts other wave sources of gravity to it. These words mean that gravity is not only part of the wider space average that I have previously talked about, but also embraces the combined space average of all the other characteristics of the ether frame of reference as a whole. This in turn makes it a new frame of reference in its own right too. By these words I mean this gravitation frame of reference can then conversely become the necessary frame of reference upon which to create alternative material relativity models of physics. These may also include the three models described on a separate hand sheet or information sharing device.

I will now further explain and clarify these words. Within my concept of an ether there exist imaginary [non-local] particles that become identifiable particles on the analogical surface of the ether in the form of surface waves which then interact with each other in relation to the movement embraced within the immobile ether itself. The compressed phenomena associated with the ether causes contractions and expansion of the ether, so that the ether is in a type of perpetual contraction and expansion from which the concept of ether local time originates.

It is the instantaneous momentum of the gravity, together with its inherent particles in a diverse field type and size format that creates identifiable and measurable energy for space itself, and for the associated creation of local matter with both mass and no mass. The gravitational effect then becomes, as I stated earlier, a new state of reference in itself, a state where physical relativity models can then be considered.”


My closing words:-

From the information that I have provided for you today, I believe that because of the all-inclusive nature of my INDIV and DIVIS hypothesis, scientists of the future need only to decide upon what respective unit types of energy are involved within universal cosmic reality. From this point, physicists can then decide in what ratios, densities and averages these energy types need to be appropriately melded into a single quantity of information. I think that this will then provide scientists with the necessary basis of a comprehensive theory of everything.

I believe that I have provided and perhaps demonstrated the fundamental structure of the universe and how it may work. It is also possible that I have provided the elementary information that describes the essential nature and associated effects of wider reality as well. This is by both my description of NOW, as I have demonstrated, as well as the associated Euler’s equation to go with it. By these words I mean the everyday conditions and influences that commonly apply to universal human life within the wider quantum universal experience together with its associated INDIV and DIVIS effects, conditions and influences.

I pay special tribute to the philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274). If I had not accidentally discovered a small section of Aquinas’s writings and ideas I would never had attempted to write such a comprehensive document as this is and be open to ridicule. Thank you Thomas Aquinas!”

Note: This work is a highly original way of describing and explaining universal reality. This is more especially so because it explains in great detail how we fit into this reality as part of the wider interconnectedness of all things at every conceivable level in the universe.

It is for these reasons that I request your support with my copyright interest in this project. Because this blog is a concept document, and because my theory [with exception to the DIVIS feature, which is not testable] I pass it back to my unbelievers to disprove my argument that in the final analysis, reality is an INDIV/DISIV universal reality. Furthermore the universal inertia continuum is indivisible (INDIV).

Existing blog references pertinent to the above

1] Is our universe being tugged from some external source?

This physics article claims that there seems to be movement of hundreds of galaxy clusters in the universe at about 2,000,000 miles per hour. Furthermore these galaxy clusters seem to have mysterious origins that may be beyond our cosmic horizon or perhaps another universe. In other words the article is suggesting that our space time universe is being tugged by some sort of mysterious dark force that may be linked between my idea of there being both INDIV and DIVIS forces working in conjunction with each other as described in my primary blog today.

2] Were the rules of motion in our 3D universe predetermined?

I believe that they are in respect to the INDIV and DIVIS forces that have evolved in absolute time rather than at the Big Bang. As I have suggested in my primary blog today I believe these forces are derivative between my concept of a primordial gravity field and it’s associated ether theory fields.

3] Why is there no precise dividing line between microscopic and macroscopic phenomena?

This blog features quotations by the eminent physicist Antony Valentini. Valentini argues that there is no precise dividing line between microscopic and macroscopic phenomena. I believe that INDIV [indivisible] forces relate to all things except for that relating to electricity and magnetism. Therefore it is correct to say that Valentini’s ideas are similar to my own in this area.

4] Is there such a thing as sub-quantum phenomena?

As I believe that phenomena has the common field link of INDIV [indivisible] fields there are sound reasons to believe that metaphysical sub-quantum forces exist. The eminent mathematician Groessing wrote a thesis in 2013 that appears to support my INDIV/DIVIS hypothesis. This blog also looks at particle movement at a sub-quantum level as well as the diverse quantum effects relating thereto. Furthermore, the author talks about systemic non-locality which seems to be a condition such as my INDIV quantity hypothesis.

5] How David Bohm focused his (Gnostic) insight into the quantum world?

David Bohm created a Holomovement theory of physics. Bohm’s thesis includes what he refers to as the implicate order. His implicate order is a condition of influences and effects of a similar type to my INDIV hypothesis. Bohm says that elementary particles in the cosmos are amplifiers of information and that this information has no borders. These words also replicate my INDIV/DIVIS hypothesis.

6] Review of Non-local correlations between Electromagnetically Isolated Neural Networks

This very important article is profound in the sense that it shows that it is likely that our consciousness it seated outside of us and this has been proven by reputable physics experiments. Furthermore it demonstrates that metaphysical phenomena such as ghosts are feasible. In my work I refer to this alleged consciousness being outside of us is our own INDIV [indivisible] intuitive consciousness. I argue that our everyday consciousness is DIVIS [divisible] consciousness that is a consciousness that we can internally consider and rationalise, and with INDIV consciousness we cannot. It is a timeless intuition effect.

7] Morphogenic field theory, the great mystery in physics

This blog features a video presentation by Rupert Sheldrake as to how he feels that indivisible fields that can be observed exist. Sheldrake believes that these fields exist in the universe and they provide the conditions for plant, animal, and other life form species to somehow communicate with each other in a non-observable manner.

8] A seven point guide to the day to day workings of reality

This blog will be rewritten in the near future. I continue to support the contents of this blog but from within the frame of reference of my primary blog today.

9] Is space-time infinite dimensional?

This blog features the ideas of the physicist El Naschie. El Naschie believes in the cosmological condition of their being an abstract fourth dimension and our space time universe seems to be supporting particle activity within this concurrent relationship with space-time. El Naschie’s ideas therefore seems to support my DIVIS [divisible]/INDIV [in divisible] hypothesis, in as much that there does exist two reference frames that jointly create the conditions for particles to form.

10] Defining and describing holistic cosmic influences and processes

This blog will be rewritten in the near future. I continue to support the contents of this blog but from within the frame of reference of my primary blog today.

11] Did you know that there is at least 18 different interpretations of Quantum Mechanics?

This is an important blog because it points to what is probably the most serious fundamental problem with mainstream physics today. Particle physics theory is taught as a theory aside from Einstein’s two relativity theories. I think that this is incorrect because all facets of physics should be conducting research theories within a common frame of reference such as my INDIV [indivisible]/DIVIS [divisible] model. By doing this physicists are trying to set aside metaphysical conditions in the universe in order to complete the whole of everything theories.

In contrast to these words quantum mechanics makes strange metaphysical predictions in physics which are akin to my notion of there being a single INDIV force throughout the universe. Physicists have developed at least 18 different predictive models in order to breach the gap between the mysterious metaphysical forces that quantum mechanics predicts against the known understood materialist objects and influences surrounding them which includes cosmologically.

In other words this is another reason why physicists can be seen to be continuing to delve into a bottomless hole with the search for a theory of everything. They are continuing to attempt to ignore the universal INDIV quantity in the universe and its associated force fields.

12] I care to talk about entanglement

Entanglement [with associated non-locality] are fields of metaphysical forces that are understood in physics but cannot be explained. I have prepared this extensive blog regarding entanglement as well as provide a well informed opinion about it. Entanglement is an INDIV [indivisible] force which is related to my concept of there being a primordial gravity. The effects of this gravity can carry INDIV influences across the universe in an instant and this includes reverse particle spin. Also see the blog reference entitled “What travels at 10,000 times the speed of light?” below.

13] What travels at 10,000 times the speed of light?

It is commonly believed that the maximum speed of entanglement influence is about 300,000 km/sec. However, it has been worked out by physicists that the speed of entanglement between particles within the universe is at least 10,000 times the speed of light and some scientists believe it could be up to as much as 144,500 times the speed of light. Furthermore there are other physicists who believe that entanglement may occur at an external time frame of influence where it could be instantaneous. I say that this later position is the case with my INDIV [indivisible]/DIVIS [divisible] theory. Also see the blog reference “I care to talk about entanglement” above.

14] I would like to introduce you to the pure beauty of fractals

Fractal patterns exist throughout all things across the universe and this includes our body organs. You will find by way of example within this blog a beautiful example of how the hidden influence of fractals are immersed within cosmological reality. Here is an example demonstrating how fractals manifest themselves within our body organs as well.

15] Can science create a visible quantum object?

This blog describes a breakthrough experiment that demonstrates that an object can be in two places at the same time. I suggest that this is what may be occurring within my DIVIS/INDIV theory.

16] Do some people think that science is a belief system?

The respected biologist Rupert Sheldrake made a speech relating to the necessity for physicists to combine both metaphysical and physical information into their science models. Sheldrake has made several prominent speeches about his views in this area and as a result of this some professional organisations have banned Sheldrake from lecturing in their institutions. What Sheldrake is really saying is that he supports my concept of a INDIV [indivisible]/DIVIS [divisible] theory.

17] The Future of Fundamental Physics

The respected physicist Nima Arkani-Hamed talks about why he feels that scientists should fundamentally change their thinking about physics. If you read this article it is the same as that I have been talking about in relation to my INDIV [indivisible]/DIVIS [divisible] model today.

18] Seven examples of implicit information

The seven examples of implicit information [INDIV information] support my idea of a wider cosmological DIVIS/INDIV frame of reference.

19] Unusual and challenging E8 maths theory

The presenter of this video demonstrates that there are many more subatomic particles and atomic forces that are yet to be discovered in the universe. As you will find in my blog today these words are consistent to what I have claiming from the outset throughout my blogs.

20] Albert Einstein and the great ether debate

There is a great debate within the physics community as the whether traditional Lorentz ether theory is a valid theory or not. This is in lieu of the difficulties within the physics community at this time. I believe that ether theory makes a great deal of scientific sense and I have written about it accordingly. There is a little known Einstein lecture that Einstein delivered in Germany in the 1920s that strongly supports ether theory. I suggest that Einstein’s words should dominate this debate today. My INDIV [indivisible]/DIVIS [divisible] theory embraces Ether theory.

21] Comparison of three models of reality physics

The Process, Holomovement and Awareness models of physics are all built upon the condition of their being an INDIV [indivisible] frame of reference. This comparison chart demonstrates how this may be the case.

Has Special Relativity been elevated to the level of fact, not theory?

Some scientists and members of the public seem to think this way

I present my readers with a pdf document entitled “Breaking Through Editorial: The Einstein Myths — Of Space, Time, and Aether“. The document is a discussion about the consequences of Einstein removing the concept of a universal “NOW” – the absolute simultaneity of events in different relativity moving frames of reference. The author is critical of special relativity theory being treated as fact. I think that the most telling words in his document are “…has special relativity been elevated to the level of fact, not theory…”. It is for this reason I have entitled this blog this way. Furthermore I agree with many of the author’s comments. If you elect to read my blog entitled “The day science lost its way” you will find why I have made this statement. Readers will find my views about the concept of a universal ‘NOW’ in my blog entitled “The question of NOW and absolute simultaneity“. You may agree that this is another reason why I agree with the general principles put forward in the author’s presentation.

I present this paper for you to consider. Although the document is well outdated I believe that the general philosophical contents of the paper remain much the same today.

Reality with a matrix

Is it possible to describe such phenomena? I believe that it can

The primary frame of reference of this blog relates to physics ether theory, more particularly Hendrik Lorentz’s ether/electron theory that he published in 1904. Lorentz’s Relativity model was not unlike Einstein’s 1905 Special Relativity model. However, Lorentz incorporated Isaac Newton’s metaphysical ether thesis into his hypothesis. Amongst other things, Newton believed that gravity moved at instantaneous speed within his theoretical ether frame of reference.

Newton’s ideas about ether and gravity are, in today’s terms, metaphysical theories. Metaphysical theories mean phenomena that have not yet been found to have physical properties. Einstein was not interested in metaphysical theories whereas many other physicists of the same era as Einstein were. These included Lorentz. Phenomena that move faster than the speed of light were completely unacceptable to Einstein.

Within my blog today I talk about what I consider to be the essential nature and characteristics of ether. In doing this I am embracing scientific principles that are widely accepted to be metaphysical.

I feel that today I am presenting my readers with a novel and scientifically acceptable hypothesis that addresses this issue. By this I mean that I believe that I have discovered a way to change ether theory that demonstrably does not separate space from time. However, it also demonstrates that they can still be treated as separate entities. This is one of the primary reasons why metaphysical ether theory is not acceptable to the wider scientific community today. What I have done is to substitute quantum entanglement theory for what normally would be the metaphysical ether theory that I have just talked about.

Although entanglement theory is a very mysterious phenomenon, it is however, acceptable to mainstream physics because its existence and space-time characteristics have been repeatedly tested by experiment. Entanglement theory demonstrates that widely separated events in the universe can instantly influence each other, regardless of distance. It seems to me that this also means that the universe has some sort of self-consciousness. I argue that the ether model has similar characteristics to entanglement theory and that the Unity theory that I am talking about today deserves to be considered.

Within my blog I regularly talk about both entanglement and non-local phenomena. Non-locality in science has metaphysical characteristics as well, but physicists are prepared to accept this within their theoretical physical models. I have found that there is widespread disagreement within the scientific community as to what entanglement and non-locality really mean. In order to help authenticate this blog, I will clarify my position on these topics for you. You will find this discussion in the reference section of this blog.

Imagine ether to be a seamless parameter free three-dimensional tray of pure clear jelly. [Albeit it being an invisible and difficult to detect field of immobile gas. By this I mean that it is like non-local phenomena that from a layperson’s perspective may be seen as being imaginary]. The jelly is compressible and under certain conditions waves may occur. These waves then progressively move upwards to the surface of the jelly and in the process create their own independent energy along the way.

The jelly must not break the motion of material phenomena passing through it. The upper levels of the jelly are less dense than the lower levels of the jelly. This variation of density in the jelly creates pressure forces throughout the jelly that include the creation of velocity. It is these collective forces that not only permeate the holistic tray of jelly but also influence it as well.

These combined micro and macro phenomena [field forces] that at a distance create non-uniform contact behaviour [interaction] with each other. This is as though it is a neural network entangled within an analogical frame of reference of primordial self-awareness or ether. It is the compressible nature of the ether itself, in a static state, that causes this non-unified random behaviour. It is also because of this non-unified behaviour that the jelly [ether] has a preferred frame of reference. This means that the ether frame is one that collectively and randomly embraces time, motion, velocity, energy and particle size. It is from this non-unified contact behaviour that elementary particles emerge. Elementary electricity and magnetism also emerge. This also means that the holistic [macro] nature of space itself is also in a state of average at any given time and place as well. [Is in some sort of uniformity]. This means it is always fluctuating but not necessarily for the same reasons. Furthermore this means that the ether space has both predictable and non-predictable random characteristics.

These ideas seem consistent with the randomness theory associated with both Einstein’s special relativity theory and Lorentz’s 1904 ether/electron theory. These models are mathematically similar to each other, but they vary in terms of the question of the movement of objects respectively therein. In other words, I am suggesting that my words in this blog today may provide scientists with a few additional clues as to how both these physics models may be finally reconciled. By this I mean via a structurally different ether theory that may never have been considered before. [Albeit being an elementary one].

Furthermore, these differing characteristics of the ether, apart from creating the waves that create gravity, are also separate fields in their own right. Which means gravity itself is a field as well. This in turn, in a macro sense, attracts other wave sources of gravity to it. These words mean that gravity is not only part of the wider space average that I have previously talked about, but also embraces the combined space average of all the other characteristics of the ether frame of reference as a whole. This in turn makes it a new frame of reference in its own right too. By these words I mean this gravitation frame of reference can then conversely become the necessary frame of reference upon which to create alternative material relativity models of physics. These may also include the three models described on a separate hand sheet or information sharing device.

I will now further explain and clarify these words. Within my concept of an ether there exist imaginary [non-local] particles that become identifiable particles on the analogical surface of the ether in the form of surface waves which then interact with each other in relation to the movement embraced within the immobile ether itself. The compressed phenomena associated with the ether causes contractions and expansion of the ether, so that the ether is in a type of perpetual contraction and expansion from which the concept of ether local time originates.

It is the instantaneous momentum of the gravity, together with its inherent particles in a diverse field type and size format that creates identifiable and measurable energy for space itself, and for the associated creation of local matter with both mass and no mass. The gravitational effect then becomes, as I stated earlier, a new state of reference in itself, a state where physical relativity models can then be considered.

Reference 1:

The ideas contained in this blog are those in the works of Mayeul Arminjon as various other works that I have written over time about this subject.

Reference 2:

Also see my views about quantum entanglement (incorporating sub-quantum phenomena) that relates to this topic.

Reference 3.

This video demonstrates how the quantum phenomena can be emulated on a macro [visible to the naked eye] scale.

The day science lost its way

A physics story that I feel my readers should know a little more about


I believe that there are sound anecdotal reasons to suggest that both Einstein’s Relativity models are mostly not his thoughts at all. Furthermore I believe that our contemporary physics community has known this for more than a century. Additionally, I feel that over many decades both the scientific community and the media have made no serious effort to publicly investigate and subsequently clarify or deny this alleged and longstanding misapprehension. This document looks at the wide-ranging evidence that I feel supports my allegations.

I briefly talk about the role of different highly respected physicists in the development of Einstein’s two relativity models. I also ask why the results of obscure yet highly important nineteenth century experiments seem to have been repeatedly dismissed by the international physics community when it would have demonstrated that Einstein had erred in what his scientific model predicted. Furthermore I show that this dismissal occurs despite the fact that for over a hundred years some of the most learned minds in physics have thought otherwise. Finally I ask the question as to why it is we do not have Isaac Newton’s ether theory more generally taught in our educational institutions today when the evidence seems to show it should be.

I have offered my readers my views about what I feel are the unfortunate scientific and cultural consequences of this alleged concealment of important public information. I am not a physicist. The day that I felt that science lost its way was June 30th 1905.

My story

This blog is about how Albert Einstein may have partly erred when he presented his Special Relativity and General Relativity models in the early part of the twentieth century. This debate has been going on for many decades and has largely been hidden from the wider public. I am not a physicist but I would like to tell you this story all the same. From my extensive reading about this topic I believe that the most important aspects of what I am sharing with you today are mostly correct; however, it is likely that here and there I have not presented material in a manner that is historically appropriate. With the exception of general reference material that I have included at the end of this blog, I have included very few specific references.

There are two reasons why I have done this. Firstly, I think that if you are deeply interested in this topic, then I feel certain that you will set to one side the material that I am presenting you, and then conduct your own investigation in order to determine the truth of what I have written. Secondly, I will be posting a far more descriptive blog on the same subject within about a month from now. This new document will be posted in my website category entitled ‘My unity effort’. I will do my best to present this blog to you today in a manner that most lay folk will be able to understand. Keep in mind that some of the physics statements are tricky, and I do not know exactly how they work in a laboratory sense anyway. So please be patient with me on this score.

Like you, I was raised as a kid to believe that in the world of science Albert Einstein was a genius who was scientifically infallible. I now know that Einstein was very clever, but from my readings I think that he was also an opportunistic and less forthright person than we might imagine. For example, when he announced his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905 Einstein did not acknowledge that a fellow scientist by the name of Lorentz had developed and announced a very similar relativity model in 1904, relating to electron theory. The mathematical comparisons are much the same. Einstein said he was not aware of this, despite the fact that both men had known each other well for many years. I am also suggesting that Einstein scientifically cut corners with reality science in order to make things ‘fit’. This means that in my opinion, Einstein knowingly released his two relativity models in the realisation that they were both incomplete as well as he knowingly ignored existing scientific theories and experiments.

For example Einstein knew that both his models had inherent and unknowable metaphysical assumptions (like concepts of non-locality, such as consciousness) built into them. However, he did not openly talk about these things because they are not material phenomena. This is the reason why he developed his relativity models in the first place. I am not suggesting that Einstein was a liar. I am suggesting, however, that through his life Einstein periodically set out to avoid inconvenient truths relating to his research in order to make his models more believable than they would have otherwise been. Einstein’s underlying motive in doing this was to make his models material ones, so that they both clearly set aside the long term tradition in physics of space and time (like the Lorentz ether theory).

This was in order to bring material inertia (the fundamental frame of reference for every day reality science) for his two models, in lieu of the ether inertia model founded and promoted by Lorentz and his associated professional physicists like Poincare and Fitzgerald. Einstein knew that if he could do this with his models they would be ones where phenomena contained therein could be materially observed, described and tested in a lab. With ether theory, because the ether is invisible and motionless with no knowable features this is impossible. It is one of these ‘made to fit’ topics that I wish to share with you today and this relates to cosmic ether theory.

Ether theory was first postulated by Isaac Newton in the seventeenth century and continued to be popularly embraced by physicists in their scientific modelling up to the end of the nineteenth century. Ether theory is still supported by some members of the physics community today and it is referred to as neo-Lorentzian Relativity Theory or sometimes the Lorentz Ether Theory. This is important. Here is what Newton had to say about his concept of ether:


“He wrote, “I do not know what this Aether is”, but that if it consists of particles then they must be exceedingly smaller than those of Air, or even than those of Light: The exceeding smallness of its Particles may contribute to the greatness of the force by which those Particles may recede from one another, and thereby make that Medium exceedingly more rare and elastic than Air, and by consequence exceedingly less able to resist the motions of Projectiles, and exceedingly more able to press upon gross Bodies, by endeavoring to expand itself.”

The reason why a minority of physicists continue to believe in ether theory today is because they know that there are serious shortcomings in Einstein’s relativity modelling. These shortcomings mostly originate from the fact that they see Einstein’s physics as being both incomplete and incorrect along the lines that I have stated above. I will now address the background to some of these issues.

Einstein had linked his models to light as the primary point of reference for his modelling. Some physicists felt that his theory did not stand up to deeper scientific scrutiny, nor did his idea of linking light with time. However, Einstein was correct in defining the speed of light as being 300,000 km/s because this is exactly the speed that Maxwell had determined it to be with his theory of electromagnetism in the middle of the eighteenth century. The big difference between the two, however, is that Einstein calculated his light speed as being that within a vacuum of space-time, whilst Maxwell and other prominent scientists at the time (such as Fitzgerald, Poincare and Lorentz) felt otherwise. They felt that Maxwell’s determination of the speed of light should be related to an electromagnetic field existing within an invisible and timeless ether.

I am suggesting that Einstein was at the time attempting to ‘squeeze’ his two relativity theories into respective material frames of reference that ignored the wider reality of the existence of a type of analogical overarching cosmic ether. This is an invisible ether that is massless and motionless and, as such, is unknowable but on the other hand describable. By this I mean that mathematics supports this hypothesis as well as the presence of a concurrent electromagnetic field therein. This hypothesis was demonstrated by experiment by Maxwell in the mid 19th century.

I feel that you should know that whilst Einstein had set out to describe his relativity theories as fundamental and universal principles for all physics, Lorentz on the other hand (with others assisting) had spent nearly thirteen years developing his electron relativity ether theory. This theory tried to explain the null result of an earlier (1887) physics experiment to determine if the earth was moving in space, which I will further discuss shortly.

I will now talk about how in the early twentieth century the international world of science came within a whisker of adopting a metaphysical model of reality physics. You may find these words are incredible. I will introduce you to this section of my blog by quoting an extract from a detailed wikipedia article.


“In the late 19th century, luminiferous aether, aether, or ether, meaning light-bearing aether, was the postulated medium for the propagation of light.[1] It was invoked to explain the ability of the apparently wave-based light to propagate through empty space, something that waves should not be able to do. The assumption of a spatial plenum of luminiferous aether, rather than a spatial vacuum, provided the theoretical medium that was required by wave theories of light.

The concept was the topic of considerable debate throughout its history, as it required the existence of an invisible and infinite material with no interaction with physical objects. As the nature of light was explored, especially in the 19th century, the physical qualities required of the aether became increasingly contradictory. By the late 1800s, the existence of the aether was being questioned, although there was no physical theory to replace it.

The negative outcome of the Michelson–Morley experiment suggested that the aether was non-existent. This led to considerable theoretical work to explain the propagation of light without an aether. A major breakthrough was the theory of relativity, which could explain why the experiment failed to see aether, but was more broadly interpreted to suggest that it wasn’t needed. The Michelson-Morley experiment, along with the blackbody radiator and photoelectric effect, was a key experiment in the development of modern physics, which includes both relativity and quantum theory, the latter of which explains the wave-like nature of light.

The modern understanding is that heat radiation is, like light, electromagnetic radiation. However, Newton viewed heat and light as two different phenomena. He believed heat vibrations to be excited “when a Ray of Light falls upon the Surface of any pellucid Body.”

The argument at the time (which still pervades the world of physics to this day) surrounds the alleged null results of an experiment that took place in the United States of America in 1887. It is known as the Michelson – Morley experiment. The aim of this experiment was to demonstrate that “… if the earth was acting like a spaceship moving through Lorentz’s concept of an invisible and massless cosmic ether at the speed of light in the direction of the earth’s motion, then it should be lower than it is in a direction at right angles to this. By measuring these speeds it should be possible to detect the earth’s absolute velocity relative to the ether. The velocity of the earth’s orbit around the sun is around 30 km/s. Any motion through the ether should be at least as much at some time of the night or day of the year”. In this blog I will not attempt to explain the intricacies of the experiment to you because they are complicated and beyond my knowledge.


My primary mission here is to assert that I feel that there is likely to exist another more complete version of Relativity physics other than the ones Einstein left us with. This is another model that probably addresses many of the mysteries that plague the world of science to this day (such as gravity, entanglement, non locality and the mystery surrounding the double slit experiment).

I therefore suggest that in view of the then widely accepted ether theory in the  community (from such as Maxwell, Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Poincare, and Heaviside) the single supposed null result from one experiment {Michelson and Morely, 1887} should have raised a much more serious debate than what it did at the time. And furthermore, such lack of serious debate encouraged Einstein to take charge of the debate by introducing materialistic Relativity models that for all intents  and purposes sidelined any hint of there being an invisible, motionless, timeless ether as I have already indicated. This is an ether that had been widely known about and accepted for many years. Some theorists such as Lorentz and Poincare retained doubts about Einstein’s theories (movement of small and large objects in Special and General Relativity respectively). All the while Einstein was effectively promoting his theories. Maybe Lorentz, Poincare and other physicists at the time held off seriously challenging Einstein because the maths supporting Einstein’s modelling was almost the same as that Lorentz had formulated in earlier years which he publicly presented in Holland in 1904. [Einstein released his special relativity theory in June 1905].

As I have already suggested, this collective acceptance by scientists of Einstein’s relativity models set the scene for the monumental spread and acceptance of Einstein’s Special Relativity and General Relativity Models across the world. Furthermore Einstein’s models are still vigorously defended. This includes the fact that the mathematics of Einstein’s models are derived from Lorentz’s original electron-ether model (theory of corresponding states) which, as I stated earlier, means  that both models are much the same. The following quote is an example of the science community discussion I am talking about.


“During the 1920s, the experiments pioneered by Michelson were repeated by Dayton Miller, who publicly proclaimed positive results on several occasions, although not large enough to be consistent with any known aether theory. In any case, other researchers were unable to duplicate Miller’s claimed results, and in subsequent years the experimental accuracy of such measurements has been raised by many orders of magnitude, and no trace of any violations of Lorentz invariance has been seen. (A later re-analysis of Miller’s results concluded that he had underestimated the variations due to temperature.)

Since the Miller experiment and its unclear results there have been many more experiments to detect the aether. Many of the experimenters have claimed positive results. These results have not gained much attention from mainstream science, since they are in contradiction to a large quantity of high-precision measurements, all of them confirming special relativity.”


Additionally, because of the electromagnetic field separately embraced within the ether, both models can be supported by physics rules observer requirements.


“Perhaps the most important feature of the Lorentz hypothesis is that an observer moving with respect to the ether can apply the same electromagnetic equations as can the Einstein relativity model observer in his concept of a stationary ether system. This means that both observers, employing different physics, are making the same cosmic observations (Lorentz later called this phenomenon the theory of corresponding states)” [This quotation is from a document I commenced writing a few weeks ago. This is the blog that I hope to post within four weeks from now. I have entitled this parallel project “I care to talk to you about Hendrik Lorentz”].

In short, from a theoretical  perspective, there is little difference between both models, except for the fact that the inertia for both (primary point of reference to begin with such as ether) was different. In Lorentz’s ether theory the inertia is motionless and in Einstein’s relativity models it is not. Einstein’s theories related to moving objects within a space time inertia.

In other words, the holistic nature of ether/electron relativity theory as was created by Lorentz and his supporters was one that may have eventually led to the necessary body of information and physics that would have eventually led to a physics theory of everything. This includes a successful gravity theory as well. Einstein’s general relativity theory does not successfully incorporated a gravity theory because of Einstein’s desire to make phenomena “fit” within his physical science models. [Because Newton and others believed that gravity travels at instantaneous speed, does this mean that it emanates from outside the universe? It follows that if this is the case that it would be metaphysical phenomena.] You will find an essay supporting these words in item three of my reference section below.

I believe that it is the reluctance of the wider scientific community to embrace non-material (metaphysical) phenomena into their modelling that has seen it become as frustrated as it is today. This includes quantum entanglement and non-locality and its inability to discover super symmetry (new particles that would help them to understand the real world around us). I recently read that if this does not happen, science as we know it will soon be compelled to begin creating alternative models in order to understand reality. Is it conceivable that it may have to reconsider Lorentz’s ether theory? Who knows. You will find more information about this crisis in physics here:

I will now turn my attention to discussing the now famous Michelson and Morely 1887 experiment with its associated null result that I mentioned earlier.  Probably this is a difficult area for you to understand and for me to write about. I have included two videos in order to assist you to understand the essential nature of the experiment. One of these is about the apparatus Michelson and Morely employed in order to conduct their experiment, and the second one relates to the frames of reference they were employing in order to confirm their experiment hypothesis. However, the point is that such an experiment took place and the alleged null result changed and conceivably re-directed the course of science forever.

As an introduction to my debate regarding this Michelson – Morley matter, I have cut and pasted a section of a Wikipedia article that may provide a useful background. I have emboldened what I consider to be key words in this article. However, the critical thing is the huge degree of confusion that existed within the scientific community regarding ether theory from around the mid nineteenth century onwards. It is this confusion and scientific disarray that is the focal point of my message to you today. Scientists were not able to make up their minds whether ether theory is pertinent to reality physics or not.


“Albert A. Michelson (1881) tried to measure the relative motion of the Earth and ether (Aether-Wind), as it was expected in Fresnel’s theory, by using an interferometer. He could not determine any relative motion, so he interpreted the result as a confirmation of the thesis of Stokes… However, Lorentz (1886) showed Michelson’s calculations were wrong and that he had overestimated the accuracy of the measurement. This, together with the large margin of error, made the result of Michelson’s experiment inconclusive. In addition, Lorentz showed that Stokes’ completely dragged aether led to contradictory consequences, and therefore he supported an aether theory similar to Fresnel’s… To check Fresnel’s theory again, Michelson and Edward W. Morley (1886) performed a repetition of the Fizeau experiment. Fresnel’s dragging coefficient was confirmed very exactly on that occasion, and Michelson was now of the opinion that Fresnel’s stationary aether theory was correct… To clarify the situation, Michelson and Morley (1887) repeated Michelson’s 1881-experiment, and they substantially increased the accuracy of the measurement. However, this now famous Michelson–Morley experiment again yielded a negative result, that is, no motion of the apparatus through the ether was detected (although the Earth’s velocity is 60 km/s different in the northern winter from summer). So the physicists were confronted with two seemingly contradictory experiments: the 1886 experiment as an apparent confirmation of Fresnel’s stationary ether, and the 1887 experiment as an apparent confirmation of Stokes’ completely dragged ether…

The Michelson – Morely experiment was about determining the speed of the earth through space and the apparatus needed to achieve this objective is called an interferometer. Interferometers are designed to reflect light beams into reflecting mirrors in order to monitor movement and are highly sensitive to any form of external interference. The apparatus concerned had rigid arms extending from its sides as part of the measuring process. Also keep in mind that the experiment was conducted in 1887 and so the apparatus was obviously not as sophisticated as it is today. What is more important is that the so-called null result was not an absolute null result at all. What actually happened was that the results, although being seemingly trivial to us, fluctuated across a wide range from 5 to 15 k/s per second. At that time speed was determined by Newtonian mathematics as it relates to physics. I partly understand from my reading that this Newtonian interpretation of the experimental results contributed to the final negative result as well (I will seek to clarify this point in my new Henrik Lorentz paper).

It is against this background that the failure of this Michelson – Morley experiment reset the future of scientific history. It is for this reason that I feel that Lorentz and his colleagues were premature in supporting Einstein and his Relativity models as early as they did and hence gave Einstein greater credibility than he would have otherwise obtained. These words seem to be confirmed by Reg Cahill.

I will now do my best to describe the probable reasons why Lorentz and contemporary physicists thought the way they did about both the insignificant result of the Michelson- Morely experiment and the fluctuations of readings of the interferometer itself. In physics there is phenomenon called contraction of rigid poles with the process of movement, as well as time dilation. Time dilation is about the mechanical movements of clocks (not related to their outer casings). Mechanical movements in clocks (let’s say behaviour) are now known to behave differently in different frames of reference. An extreme analogy of this phenomenon is this. Say you had a twin sister or brother and you decided to visit the other side of the universe and return in a rocket.

Physics can now demonstrate that upon your return you would look significantly younger than your twin who remained on earth.  What has happened is that you, together with the mechanism of the clock inside the rocket have not slowed down in reference to the inside of the rocket itself. However, you and the movement of the clock both have slowed down in relation to a clock (and your twin) on earth because they in are different in frames of reference, one being the earth and the other the inside of the rocket

A similar analogy applies with clocks inside and outside the ether frame of` reference. A rigid rod contracts in a state of motion for similar reasons to the rocket analogy and these reasons seem to relate to some sort of distortion of molecular forces occurring within rods when they move. Rods materially change in other ways as well. I will provide you with an analogy to what I mean by this. Imagine an ordinary domestic broomstick with two square plates centrally nailed to each end of the broomstick. Now stand the broomstick vertically on end and then place a five kilogram lead ball on the top plate of the vertical broomstick. The weight of the lead ball then partly contracts the length of the broomstick and in doing so puts outward pressure on the centre of the broomstick which then causes it to expand. A transfer of energy has taken place.

This change seems to mean that the mechanism of the interferometer (akin to the mechanism of a clock), together with the molecular forces therein change and furthermore this same phenomena includes the rigid arms of the interferometer. They are contracting in relation to the object being monitored in space as well as the rigid substructure of the interferometer itself that additionally sits on a firm concrete or rock foundational base. This means molecular forces are at play with all phenomena relating to the experiment. By this I mean the moving interferometer relating to different frames of reference.

Whilst to you and me such minuscule movements may seem trivial, in terms of the measuring process of the interferometer it is significant. I think it is worth noting that Lorentz in his electron theory defined these molecular forces as being the gaps between electrons within rigid rods that expand and contract with movement. Furthermore it was from this movement process that Lorentz then decided to relate this movement to the ether frame of reference itself, which he then called ether local-time, or real time. This is the frame of reference from which the physics terminology ‘time dilation’ originated.

In summary, it seems that it was the contraction of the rigid arms of the interferometer in the Michelson – Morley experiment, together with associated time dilation affect, along the lines of the analogy I have just given, that made most of the difference in establishing if the Michelson – Morley experiment was a valid one or not. As I also suggested earlier, it is possible that Newtonian mathematical interpretation played a negative role in this process as well, but this is yet to be determined.

I would now like to talk to you about time in relation to ether and Einstein’s two relativity models, more particularly so regarding clocks in Einstein’s space-time universe and Lorentz’s electron/ether theory. I believe that because clock space-time is not specifically relevant in an absolute time ether frame of reference (but dilation local-time is), then velocity with respect to space time is not relevant and absolute ether time is not relevant either. Velocity in ether time is only relevant to moving objects within this inertial frame of reference and these objects are not directly connected to the ether. Such objects move in a concurrent relationship with it and not to it. Ether time is regarded as being related to rigid rod contraction relating to movement as I discussed a little earlier.

The mechanical mechanisms of clocks behave differently in space-time  ether medium as well because of the phenomena of dilation. In my opinion this does not mean that Einstein’s relativity models are incorrect. I think that his preliminary intentions before he published his Special Relativity model in 1905 were contextually correct, in terms both of his two new theories original frames of reference. However, it seems to me that he was unable to effectively separate out key elements of Lorentz’s original electron/ether theory and build them into his own two relativity theories. What has happened is that by removing Lorentz concept of an immobile ether Einstein later found he had to reintroduce again in order to make his 1915 general relativity model make sense.

This fact is difficult to find in contemporary and mainstream literature. It is for this reason I support my words by both quoting Einstein’s statement about the subject as well as hear his confirming words on the matter in a 1920 video clip.


“…The electromagnetic fields appear as ultimate, irreducible realities, and at first it seems superfluous to postulate a homogeneous, isotropic ether-medium, and to envisage electromagnetic fields as states of this medium.

But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever…”

I will begin to close this blog this way. I am about to be a little more critical of Einstein and I think you will soon realise why this is the case. Once again I remind my readers that Einstein needed some sort of ether theory for his two Relativity models in order for them to make mathematical and physical sense. Both his relativity models were supposed to be mutually complementary to each other. Special relativity was meant to relate to the movement of smaller objects and general relativity related to larger objects. Because Einstein was determined to solely describe physical models of reality he did create shortcuts in order to make his two models make sense. My example of one of them I have just talked about. Furthermore towards the end of his life Einstein began to feel that his speed of light frame of reference for both of his relativity models may have been incorrect as well. I have read in physics texts that Einstein did conceal this necessary feature of his relativity models in a covert manner (this is my layperson interpretation of the text) in both his models, which I do not fully understand. I will attempt to address this question in my more extensive follow on blog as well. Readers may find my blog entitled “The questionable nature of the standard model of physics” of interest as well. There is a significant amount of new information therein that is complimentary to this work today.

Only Einstein would have known the reason why he moved from traditional Newtonian ether theory to his two material models or relativity, against all the scientific wisdom and experience that existed around him. From my limited research I believe that Einstein embarked upon his new relativity theories knowing full well that Lorentz and other scientists had been working for many years developing their own relativity theories which are often in partnership with each other as I discussed earlier. These other theories seem to have been based upon the original electricity/magnetism model theorised by Maxwell which would later become electro-magnetic theory. With the input of other scientists such as Fitzgerald and Poincare, Lorentz finally presented his electron/ether thesis to the wider science community in 1904, that is, one year before Einstein released his special relativity model on June 30th 1905. That is why I entitled this blog ‘The day that science lost its way’.

Once again I remind my readers that Einstein knew full well that his two Relativity models rested upon the negative result of the Michelson – Morley interferometer experiment of 1887. Hence I ask this question. “Why did he do this when he also knew that the same experiment had been repeated several times both before (with mixed results) and after the now scientifically disputed 1887 experiment? The follow-on experiments after 1887 demonstrated that there was in fact consistent evidence that there was a continuation of the same fluctuating interferometer readings as had occurred in 1887. Surely Einstein should have realised these repeated experiments were telling him something and they were not just aberrations relating to the interferometer apparatus on the day? Additionally, and I feel this is the most important statement of this blog, the same experiment was once again replicated by the highly respected physicist Dayton Miller in the years between 1929 and 1932. Throughout this period Miller’s highly sophisticated interferometer data results were seemingly positively conclusive. I have used the word seemingly because from my reading of the literature, Millers’s peers (the panel of scientists who assessed his experimental results) rejected his experimental results.

The alleged reason for this rejection was because Miller did not create a written theory prior to his interferometer experiment, one that he should have made available to his assessment peers at the time when he submitted the results of his experiments. I have read that Miller corrected this error but the panel of professors still rejected his scientific findings. I will be discussing this period of Miller’s life in greater length in my more detailed Hendrik Lorentz presentation. I would like to try and understand the wider politics that were going on behind the scenes with Miller’s peers at the time of his experiment. I will never fully understand the physics relating thereto. Despite his negative experience with his peers, Miller was still able to successfully defend his 1933 interferometer results for the remainder of his life. Miller died in 1941. However, he was never able to achieve the high degree of recognition that he probably deserved. This too may be another reason why Miller’s experiment is not favourably recognised by the international physics community today.

Since 1933 many other interferometer and similar experiments relating to the same ether wind phenomenon (like Cahill and Morris) have been conducted with positive results. However, the international physics community continues to this day to hold firm on its stance that the original 1887 Michelson – Morley experiment must remain the defining negative experiment relating to ether wind controversy. In other words it seems to me that contemporary scientists are saying that Lorentz’s 1904 electron/ether physics theory (scientifically accepted at the time) will never again be considered for a stand-alone theory by mainstream physics. I will quote Albert Einstein as follows. I believe that Einstein’s words regarding the Michelson and Morely experiments should remain the defining statement of this longstanding and unhelpful issue in physics.


“My opinion about Miller’s experiment (meaning the Michelson – Morley experiment) is as follows… Should the positive result be confirmed (it eventually wasn’t), then the special theory of relativity, and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain. However, they would have to be a significantly different theory”

Source: Albert Einstein in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, July 1925

I feel that you should know that over many decades hundreds of honourable and dedicated physicists have attempted to change the entrenched ideas of mainstream physicists (not necessarily via their own experiments) in respect to both Einstein’s relativity models. Apart from Dayton Miller and Herbert Ives you will find numerous other physicists contributing to this debate cited within the group of four sub-references at the close of this blog. These four references relate to my desire to share with you what to me is one of the most distressing stories one could ever expect in the life of a dedicated and honourable scientist. This is the story of Dayton Miller. Because these quotes are lengthy I have positioned them under my own references that follow a little further down the page.

I am of the opinion that this story needs to be told. I believe that it is a long overdue story that the media would never publish along the same inclusive lines that I have attempted to in this blog. I concede that my access to primary support material has been limited. I have not written this work for the benefit of scientists. This is because I feel that most scientists would probably already know at least a little bit about this unfortunate and closeted story in scientific history anyway. I would like to think that my words will principally interest laypersons, mums, dads and kids that would otherwise never had heard about such an unusual story. I am also aware that this story may seem to defy rational belief. This is one of the reasons why I have commenced writing a more comprehensive paper about the same subject. This new paper will include numerous primary and secondary scientific quotes. Please keep in mind that I am not a physicist.

As you consider this blog, I request that you not only keep Miller’s story in mind but also all the other scientists who over time have attempted to influence the international physics community to honourably and transparently reassess historical interferometer results. Furthermore perhaps a group of internationally respected physicists may consider conducting professional interferometer experiments of their own along the lines Dayton Miller did. I also wonder why it is that Isaac Newton’s ether theory should not return to becoming the scientific foundation stone of a physics story of everything, that is, a story about both material and metaphysical everyday reality. Am I correct in asking if this is not exactly what Isaac Newton was trying to tell us all in the seventeenth century?

You will understand that I feel passionate about this subject. I believe that there are very powerful ethical issues associated with this debate. As I pointed out at the beginning of this blog, it is inevitable that there are incorrect statements in my effort today, and for this I am sorry. There is also significant information online that provides a more accurate assessment of Einstein’s scientific life and times that I could never understand or seriously doubt. This is one such item. It has been written for the benefit of professional physicists. Thank you for considering the contents of my blog.

Here is reference material that may be of assistance to you with this topic:

1 The names and professional scientific backgrounds of the scientists that I have talked about in this blog are Dayton Miller, Hendrik Lorentz, Henri Poincare, George Fitzgerald, Oliver Hilviside, Herbert Ives and Albert Einstein.
2 I have hyper-linked three videos that I feel would be of assistance to you. These videos are:
2.1 One relating to why light should not be considered as a primary frame of reference in physics. You will also hear about why Lorentz Transformation theory is so important in understanding hidden (metaphysical) connections existing between infinite numbers of individual frames of reference of both a physical and metaphysical sub-quantum nature- which implies reality:
2.2 A down-to-earth video that talks about what ether is (but not necessarily in the same frame of reference that Lorentz talked about it.):
2.3 If you believe that time is not a meaningless physical concept you may also find Barbour’s video about time to be of interest. Barbour is one of the most respected scientists in the world with regard to this topic:
3. The following text seems to provide sound reasons as to why Einstein was wrong and why Newton was right regarding the speed of gravity.


The Speed of Gravity: Why Einstein Was Wrong and Newton Was Right
Published Nov. 30, 2012 by Michael Suede

It may surprise you to learn that the speed of gravity is something of an ongoing debate among many cosmologists today.

The textbook answer to the question “what is the speed of gravity?” is that it propagates at the speed of light. This answer is derived from Einstein’s version of relativity, which demands that nothing be able to propagate faster than the speed of light. Yet there is a large body of physical evidence that contradicts this theoretical assertion.

In 1998, physicist Tom Van Flandern authored a paper in Physics Letters A that remains one of the best refutations of Einstein’s version of relativity ever published. Van Flandern argues that Hendrik Lorentz’s version of relativity, which incorporates an aether that all matter moves through, is more correct than Einstein’s version, based on experimental observations about the speed of gravity. Lorentz and Einstein’s versions of relativity are actually very similar. The main difference being that the speed of light is not a limiting factor in Lorentz’s version of relativity. Van Flandern argues that the speed of gravity is far faster than the speed of light, just as Newton’s laws describe it to be. Newton’s laws declare gravity to propagate instantaneously.

I’m sure by now you may be wondering what kind of proof does Van Flandern have to offer? Van Flandern starts out by demonstrating that the visible light arriving from the Sun to Earth comes from a measurably different location in the sky than the point that the Earth is accelerating towards in space. This is because light propagates at light speed, while gravity propagates at infinite speed. The fact that the Earth is not accelerating toward the visible location of the Sun, but rather 20 arc seconds in front of the visible Sun (where the Sun will visibly be 8.3 minutes in the future) is very strong evidence against gravity propagating at the speed of light. This same light delay effect is seen in the positions of stars as well.

If gravity propagated between the Sun and the Earth at the same speed as visible light, the Earth would double the distance from the Sun in 1200 years, which obviously isn’t happening. Many other notable physicists besides Newton and Lorentz also concluded that orbital calculations must be made using an infinite speed of gravity. Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington’s orbital calculations rely on gravity having an infinite speed, and Pierre-Simon Laplace calculated gravity to have a speed of at least 10^8 times the speed of light.

Van Flandern goes on to discuss GPS clocks, which are often cited as being proof positive of Einstein’s relativity. It may surprise you, but the GPS system doesn’t actually use Einstein’s field equations. In fact, this paper by the U.S. Naval Observatory tells us that, while incorporating Einstein’s equations into the system may slightly improve accuracy, the system itself doesn’t rely on them at all. To quote the opening line of the paper, “The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require.”

Van Flandern explains why this is so:

Finally, the Global Positioning System (GPS) showed the remarkable fact that all atomic clocks on board orbiting satellites moving at high speeds in different directions could be simultaneously and continuously synchronized with each other and with all ground clocks. No “relativity of simultaneity” corrections, as required by SR, were needed. This too seemed initially to falsify SR. But on further inspection, continually changing synchronization corrections for each clock exist such that the predictions of SR are fulfilled for any local co-moving frame. To avoid the embarrassment of that complexity, GPS analysis is now done exclusively in the Earth-centered inertial frame (the local gravity field). And the pre-launch adjustment of clock rates to compensate for relativistic effects then hides the fact that all orbiting satellite clocks would be seen to tick slower than ground clocks if not rate-compensated for their orbital motion, and that no reciprocity would exist when satellites view ground clocks.

Van Flandern also discusses the famous Michelson-Morely experiment, the Michelson-Gale experiment, and the Sagnac experiment, which are often cited as discrediting Lorentz’s version of relativity. The truth of the matter is that Lorentz’s version of relativity can easily account for the observations if one simply assumes a local gravity field with preferred frame for local observers, rather than a universal gravity field. Further, at the time, the wave nature of matter has not yet been discovered by Louis de Broglie.

Van Flandern concludes his paper by saying:

Near the end of his career, Lorentz is quoted as having graciously conceded the contest: “My theory can obtain all the same results as special relativity, but perhaps not with a comparable simplicity.” (private communication from C.O. Alley) Today, with hindsight, we might make a somewhat different assessment: “Special relativity can explain all the experimental results in Table II that Lorentzian relativity can, but perhaps not with a comparable simplicity.” Even so, SR cannot explain the faster-than-light propagation of gravity, although LR readily can.

We conclude that the speed of gravity may provide the new insight physics has been awaiting to lead the way to unification of the fundamental forces.

If this article has peaked your interest in alternative cosmology, please set some time aside to watch Thunderbolts of the Gods. I guarantee that this video will change your perspective on our universe.

4. For the benefit of my readers who may have a greater knowledge and experience in physics than most of us, I suggest that you acquaint yourself with a book I recently imported from the United States of America. The book “The Einstein Myth and the IVES Papers. A counter revolution in Physics”, considers the ideas of Ives as to how he felt Einstein’s Relativity theories were inappropriately evolving between the periods of the 1920s and late 1940s. I intend to employ quotations from this book (and others similar to it) when I write my extended paper about this topic.

The following are quotes that relate to what I consider to be the less than acceptable experiences in science of the eminent physicists Dayton Miller in with regard to the Michelson – Morely experiment of 1887. I present you with four quotations.

Quote 1.
“… >> While Miller had a rough time convincing some of his contemporaries about the reality of his ether measurements, he clearly could not be ignored in this regard. As a graduate of physics from Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society and Acoustical Society of America, Chairman of the Division of Physical Sciences of the National Research Council, Chairman of the Physics Department of Case School of Applied Science (today Case Western Reserve University), and Member of the National Academy of Sciences well known for his work in acoustics, Miller was no ‘outsider’. While he was alive, he produced a series of papers presenting solid data on the existence of a measurable ether-drift, and he successfully defended his findings to not a small number of critics, including Einstein. His work employed light-beam interferometers of the same type used by Michelson-Morley, but of a more sensitive construction, with a significantly longer light-beam path. He periodically took the device high atop Mt. Wilson (above 6,000′ elevation), where Earth-entrained ether-theory predicted the ether would move at a faster speed than close to sea-level. While he was alive, Miller’s work could not be fundamentally undermined by the critics. However, towards the end of his life, he was subject to isolation as his ether measurements were simply ignored by the larger world of physics, then captivated by Einstein’s relativity theory.>>>”

Quote 2.
“Dayton Miller’s 1933 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics details the positive results from over 20 years of experimental research into the question of ether-drift, and remains the most definitive body of work on the subject of light-beam interferometry. Other positive ether-detection experiments have been undertaken, such as the work of Sagnac (1913) and Michelson and Gale (1925), documenting the existence in light-speed variations (c+v > c-v) ….” [my addition, Fizeau verified this using moving water and a light beam]

Quote 3
“What is it with scientists, why does “unacceptable” data cause the destruction of a researcher’s work and their life…
Theory is just made up BS, its the facts, that count, the results of experiment and observation…. the theory as history has shown so many times in science is just made up and should be easily discarded… never…”

Quote 4 (for the benefit of my readers with a wider knowledge of physics than me)
“…>> Miller’s observations were also consistent through the long period of his measurements. He noted, when his data were plotted on sidereal time, they produced “…a very striking consistency of their principal characteristics…for azimuth and magnitude… as though they were related to a common cause… The observed effect is dependent upon sidereal time and is independent of diurnal and seasonal changes of temperature and other terrestrial causes, and…is a cosmical phenomenon.” (Miller 1933, p.231)

Poor bloke…. he found the spin alright…. and just got destroyed for excellent work and telling the truth. Such is the illusion Einstein has created over the whole world…… amazing.

“>> There are several newspaper accounts indicating a certain tension between Albert Einstein and Dayton Miller, since the early 1920s at least. In June of 1921, Einstein wrote to the physicist Robert Millikan: “I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards.” (Clark 1971”,

>> precautions taken to eliminate effects of temperature and flexure disturbances were effective. The results gave no displacement as great as one-fifteenth of that to be expected on the supposition of an effect due to a motion of the solar system of three hundred kilometres per second. These results are differences between the displacements observed at maximum and minimum at sidereal times, the directions corresponding to … calculations of the supposed velocity of the solar system. A supplementary series of observations made in directions half-way between gave similar results.” (Michelson, Pease, Pearson 1929)

One fifteenth of 300 km/sec. is 20 km/sec., a result the authors dismissed as they apparently had discarded the concept of an Earth-entrained ether, which would move more slowly closer to sea level. A similar result of 24 km/sec. was achieved by the team of Kennedy-Thorndike in 1932, however they also dismissed the concept of an entrained ether and, consequently, their own measured result: “In view of relative velocities amounting to thousands of kilometres per second known to exist among the nebulae, this can scarcely be regarded as other than a clear null result”. This incredible statement serves to illustrate how deeply ingrained was the concept of a static ether. >>>”

End of quotes.


Recent discoveries on the properties of Space and the Wave Structure of Matter

Introduction to Fritjof Capra, Tao of Physics

I enjoy reading some of the ideas Fritjof Capra talks about in this blog. I have copied and pasted a section of his ideas for you to consider.

Fritjof Capra on Physics & Quantum Theory


“A careful analysis of the process of observation in atomic physics has shown that the subatomic particles have no meaning as isolated entities, but can only be understood as interconnections between the preparation of an experiment and the subsequent measurement. Quantum theory thus reveals a basic oneness of the universe. The mathematical framework of quantum theory has passed countless successful tests and is now universally accepted as a consistent and accurate description of all atomic phenomena. The verbal interpretation, on the other hand, i.e. the metaphysics of quantum theory, is on far less solid ground. In fact, in more than forty years physicists have not been able to provide a clear metaphysical model. (Capra, 1975)

The Metaphysics of Space and Motion and the Wave Structure of Matter now provides this ‘clear metaphysical model’. A significant problem has been the conception of the ‘particle’ and thus the resulting paradox of the ‘particle / wave’ duality. These problems have caused great confusion within modern physics over the past seventy years, as Heisenberg, Davies and Capra explain;

Both matter and radiation possess a remarkable duality of character, as they sometimes exhibit the properties of waves, at other times those of particles. Now it is obvious that a thing cannot be a form of wave motion and composed of particles at the same time – the two concepts are too different. (Heisenberg, 1930)

The idea that something can be both a wave and a particle defies imagination, but the existence of this wave-particle “duality” is not in doubt. .. It is impossible to visualize a wave-particle, so don’t try. … The notion of a particle being “everywhere at once” is impossible to imagine. (Davies, 1985)

The question which puzzled physicists so much in the early stages of atomic theory was how electromagnetic radiation could simultaneously consist of particles (i.e. of entities confined to a very small volume) and of waves, which are spread out over a large area of space. Neither language nor imagination could deal with this kind of reality very well. (Capra, The Tao of Physics, p56)

The solution to this apparent paradox is to simply explain how the discrete ‘particle’ properties of matter and light (quanta) are in fact caused by Spherical Standing Waves (Scalar Quantum Waves not Electromagnetic Vector Waves) which cause the Particle effect at their Wave-Center. For a more detailed explanation please see Quantum Theory: Particle Wave Duality.”

Quarks and creation

‘Perfect’ Liquid Hot Enough to be Quark Soup; Protons, neutrons melt to produce ‘quark-gluon plasma’ at RHIC

This seems to be an amazing story about scientists having created a new form of matter.


“This research offers significant insight into the fundamental structure of matter and the early universe, highlighting the merits of long-term investment in large-scale, basic research programs at our national laboratories,” said Dr. William F. Brinkman, Director of the DOE Office of Science. “I commend the careful approach RHIC scientists have used to gather detailed evidence for their claim of creating a truly remarkable new form of matter.”

Everything and Nothing. What does the universe really look like?

A two-part documentary which deals with two of the deepest questions there are – what is everything, and what is nothing?

This is a two epic, surreal and mind-expanding films, Professor Jim Al-Khalili searches for an answer to these questions as he explores the true size and shape of the universe and delves into the amazing science behind apparent nothingness.

The first part, Everything, sees Professor Al-Khalili set out to discover what the universe might actually look like. The journey takes him from the distant past to the boundaries of the known universe. Along the way he charts the remarkable stories of the men and women who discovered the truth about the cosmos and investigates how our understanding of space has been shaped by both mathematics and astronomy.

In my opinion these are a stunning pair of videos.

An interesting story about the dynamics of Bohm’s pilot wave theory

Strange behavior of bouncing drops demonstrates pilot-wave dynamics in action

A research team led by Yves Couder at the Université Paris Diderot recently discovered that it’s possible to make a tiny fluid droplet levitate on the surface of a vibrating bath, walking or bouncing across, propelled by its own wave field. Surprisingly, these walking droplets exhibit certain features previously thought to be exclusive to the microscopic quantum realm.

Were the rules of motion in our 3D universe predetermined?

It is important that you view the contents of this blog in relationship to my new blog entitled: “The fundamental universe revisited“. This new blog is designed to be the master science referential blog for all my science blog postings in my website.

Are phenomena relating to reality predetermined?

I cannot answer these questions. However, there now seems to be mounting evidence that the rules of motion within our 3D universe have been predetermined. I will now explain why this could be the case

For purposes of scientific research and understanding in science, over time guidelines were formed be scientists in order to embrace entanglement within their then existing scientific theories. What has recently happened is that a sophisticated experiment in Holland has definitively demonstrated that the phenomena of entanglement is real and that Einstein’s views about entanglement had been wrong all along. Mathematics had proven the existence of entanglement since the first half of the 20th century, but it had not been confirmed via a physical experiment. This means that since the Dutch experiment the scientific guidelines cited above have been compelled to change.

This now means that entanglement is in fact a metaphysical scientific phenomenon and from here on in it must be scientifically considered as such. This also implies that the rules relating to cosmic movement within the universe were probably determined at the point of the Big Bang [I suggest before the Big Bang].

I will quote extracts from a Quanta magazine article that seems to confirm my words above.


“…Either we close the loophole more and more, and we’re more confident in quantum theory, or we see something that could point toward new physics…” [This means new science modelling that formally embraces entanglement.]

“…But given the choice between quantum entanglement and superdeterminism, most scientists favour entanglement — and with it, freedom. “If the correlations are indeed set [at the Big Bang], everything is preordained,” Larsson said. “I find it a boring worldview. I cannot believe this would be true…” [I believe that the words in this second quote are suggesting that the rules of movement within the 3D universe were set at the time of the Big Bang and that cosmic movement was “preordained”. It is my opinion that the rules of nature as we know them today were also probably determined at that time as well. [This is consistent within my primordial awareness matrix modeling.]

The Dutch experiment can be assessed here

The Quanta journal article relating to the cosmic movement within the universe may be seen here

Unravelling a difficult physics paradox is not an easy task

A colleague helped me to better understand the Tolman paradox

Around four years ago I read a physics paper written by Moses Fayngold entitled “A possible resolution of the Tolman Paradox as a Quantum Superposition”. Both the topic as well as the depth of ideas Fayngold employed to assemble his paper fascinated me. Naturally enough I could only understand snippets to what the author was talking about. I passed the document along to my colleague and friend Peter to help me better understand it. I now share this interesting information with my readers. I am also paying tribute to Peter for the enormous effort he rendered in responding to my question. Thank you Peter!

The Fayngold essay is attached to this blog in the pdf file below.

On 7/Jan/2013 I sent an email to Peter. This was his response:

Hi Peter,

As a layperson I find this article interesting. Obviously I understand mere snippets of it but I have zeroed on to the closing sentence that “… QM could be nature’s device against violations of relativistic causality” May I ask has this guy got a point?

Hi John,

Thanks. This is very interesting and it is actually a new paper (1104 means 2011 04, ie April 2011).  But his argument is in relationship to the claims of Special Relativity. For the benefit of both of us I will try to explain.

Prior to Special Relativity, people assumed that light waves traveled through a medium (eg ether, or Cahill’s dynamical 3-space) at a fixed speed ‘c’. That implied that if you were moving through the medium at say speed v, then the speed of light waves relative to yourself would be c + v if you were headed into the waves, or c-v if you were headed away and being overtaken by the waves.

This in turn implied that people could determine the speed of the earth through the “ether” by measuring the speed of light in different directions. If they got a maximum speed say of c+v in one direction, and a minimum of c-v in the opposite direction, then the earth would have a speed of v relative to the ether.

Such an experiment was done by Michelson and Morley in 1887, however it gave a value for v of only about 8 km/s. Now since the earth was known to have an orbital speed around the sun of about 30 km/s, its speed through the ether would have to be at least as fast as that, so something appeared to be wrong.

In response to this, a theory was developed that motion through the ether caused matter to contract along its direction of motion and caused its internal physical processes to slow down, in such a way as to cause laboratory instruments to always measure the speed of light as being equal c, even if in reality it differed from c. This became known as Lorentzian Relativity Theory and it implied that it might be completely impossible to experimentally detect motion of matter relative to ether.

However, Cahill argues that if laboratory instruments get distorted by motion through ether, then to get the true value of v, one needs to multiply the experimentally determined value of 8 km/s by a scale factor, which then gives a value of about 400 km/s, which accounts for the orbital velocity of the earth plus the velocity of the sun as it orbits our galaxy etc. See:

The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute Motion

However, if one assumes, as most physicists came to do, that motion of matter relative ether can not be experimentally detected, then it should be possible to make the same predictions as Lorentzian Relativity, using simpler equations that don’t include terms related to velocity through ether.

That is, it should be possible to develop a mathematically simpler alternative to Lorentzian Relativity that would work just as well for practical purposes.

This was achieved by Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity, which became popular because of its greater simplicity.

However, by leaving out the ether, Special Relativity allows paradoxes to arise such as Tolman’s paradox, which I will try to illustrate in a simple way.

Suppose we have observers A and B each with physically identical clocks.

And suppose A is at rest in ether and that B brushes past A and then away from A at a speed through the ether that causes B’s clock to run at half speed.

Then according to Lorentzian Relativity, A can say that the motion of B through the ether causes B’s clock to run at half speed relative to A’s clock and B can agree that this is so.

However, for the same situation Special Relativity asserts that A can say that the motion of B relative to A causes B’s clock to run at half speed relative to A’s clock but that since there is no ether, B has an equal right to say that the motion of A relative to B causes A’s clock to run at half speed relative to B’s clock.

At first sight this appears a ridiculous contradiction, but in practice, it is not possible for A and B to compare the times shown by their clocks without sending signals to each other and it turns out that if the signals do not exceed the speed of light, inconsistencies do not arise when comparisons are made. So because we currently have no way to send signals faster than light,  A and B are each entitled to claim that his own clock is running normally and that it is the clock of the other that is slow and there is no practical way to prove that either is wrong.

But, suppose it was possible for each observer to remotely stop the clock of the other using a signal of infinite speed?

Eg suppose at the instant that B brushes past A, A and B zero their clocks, and then after two seconds A stopped B’s clock and then in response B stopped A’s clock. What would be the result?

Lorentzian Relativity theory predicts that when A stops B’s clock, B’s clock will only be showing a time of one second because it runs at half  the rate of A’s clock. And when B stops A’s clock in response to that, A’s clock will  be showing a time of two seconds, because from B’s point of view, A’s clock runs at twice the speed of B’s clock.  This is also what A would expect, because it would take zero time for a signals of infinite speed to travel from A to B and back to A again. So A would expect his clock to stop as soon as he stops B’s clock.

So Lorentzian Relativity predicts a logically consistent result.

In contrast…

Special relativity theory predicts that when A stops B’s clock, B’s clock will only be showing a time of one second because it runs at half  the rate of A’s clock. But when B stops A’s clock in response to that, A’s clock will only be showing a time of half of a second because from B’s point of view, A’s clock runs at half the speed of B’s clock.

But if A’s clock stops when it is showing only half a second, it could never get to two seconds to allow A to send the signal to stop B’s clock !

So in this example, Special Relativity results in paradox if we consider signals that travel at infinite speed. (The paradox can also arise if the signal speed is less than infinite but greater than the speed of light, but that is more difficult to reason about).

For people who prefer Special Relativity, the usual way to avoid this paradox is to assume that it is impossible for anything to travel faster than light, because if anything could do so, it could be used to send signals between observers such as A and B. That rules out tachyons so far as such people are concerned.

However, the paper you referenced suggests another way to avoid the paradox. The argument seems to be like this.

Suppose we assume that two versions of A (and his clock) can exist in a state of superposition, eg A1 and A2. Then when the clock of A1 shows two seconds, A1 sends a an infinitely fast signal to stop B’s clock. B then sends an infinitely fast signal to stop A’s clock which owing to the claims of Special Relativity arrives when A’s clock shows half a second. This would result in a paradox if it stopped the clock of A1, but thanks to the existence of A2, this signal can stop the clock of A2 rather than the clock of A1.

However, the situation of having two versions of A in superposition cannot continue for ever. At some point, one or other of the states must end up as the one that is observed to be real. If A1 is manifested, then A sent a signal to stop B’s clock, but did not receive a signal back to stop his clock, so that signal was in effect lost in quantum noise. If A2 is manifested, then A received a signal from B to stop his clock, but did not send a signal to stop B’s clock so the signal that stopped B’s clock was in effect spontaneously generated by quantum noise.

So this method of avoiding the paradox allows signals (eg using tachyons) that are faster than light, but does not allow such signals to be used for reliable communication.

On the other hand, as illustrated above, Lorentzian Relativity does not result in paradoxes when we consider signals (eg using tachyons) that move faster then light so adopting Lorentzian Relativity instead of Special Relativity provides a simpler way to avoid the paradox.


tachyons and superposition pdf