Restoring integrity one truth at a time

The Naked Truth About Inflation (It’s Just Supply & Demand)

In 2020, I was one of the few who accurately predicted over 7% inflation. That insight paid off in the bond market, and it still guides my trading today. The reason? I rely on a simple yet powerful economic model—one that forms a foundation of economic literacy and cuts through market noise and propaganda.

Think of every trade as a barter. You make chairs and want to trade a few for a bicycle. How many chairs will you need to trade for the bicycle?

We’ll start with the basic economic model for estimating “value,” supply, and demand. Simple: if an item is abundant, it will be less valuable. If it’s highly desired, it will be more valuable.

However, in a barter situation, we have to consider the supply and demand of both chairs and bicycles. The model doesn’t allow us to calculate an absolute value, but it allows us to determine that bicycles are four times more valuable than chairs. Therefore, you will need to trade four chairs to purchase the bicycle.

Here’s the trick: all transactions are barters. Currency just disguises the exchange. If you’re a chair-making person desiring a bicycle, chairs are your currency. The bicycle maker views bicycles as their currency. Today we use a common currency. You make chairs for dollars, and then you barter dollars for the bicycle. However, to find the actual clearing price, we still have to think about the supply and demand of those dollars.

Supply and demand pressures apply to currency just as they do to goods. If you “inflate” the currency supply, it will become less valuable. However, that may not result in higher prices because demand for the currency could be rising at the same time (something banks might actually want to do because it’s profitable to make desired commodities more plentiful.)

Simple points:

Inflation is not just about increasing the money supply but whether that currency is in high demand.
Supply and demand pressures apply equally to goods and the currency used to purchase them.

Traditionally, “inflation” means increasing the supply of a currency, thus diluting it and making it less valuable, but today people often refer to inflation as “a general increase of all prices.” That’s a diluted viewpoint that cannot discern if bicycles are becoming more valuable, or your chairs are becoming less valuable.

Before you borrow wood, at interest, to make chairs, you need to know about the supply and demand prospects of chairs. That’s why, in predicting interest rates, we have to understand the supply and demand of the dominant currency. Blindly assuming “all prices are rising” doesn’t give us the fidelity we need.

When I’m looking at the oil market, I’m also looking at the supply and demand pressures of the currency it’s priced in. Now I know if I need to be playing a movement in oil, or the movement in the dollar. I double the complexity, but I also double the understanding—leading to clarity.

A simple example of the principle is why tariffs are not inflationary. The tax restricts the supply of some product, causing its price to go up. However, it doesn’t cause the supply or demand of the currency to change. If consumers have to pay higher prices for bicycles, they’ll have less money for chairs—so chair prices would fall. We can predict that we won’t see a general increase in ALL prices due to tariffs.

This model is why I was able to predict inflation in 2020 while others were blind to it. Why was I alone in seeing this? Because people still don’t understand inflation. They watch CPI reports like they mean something, but they never ask the one question that matters—what’s happening to the actual supply and demand of the currency itself? That’s why they get misled. The real surprise? They never question why.

Inflation isn’t just about printing money; it’s about the balance between money supply and its demand. If you can track those forces, you’ll see past the noise and propaganda that blind most market participants.

Stay present.

The Rotating Paper Analogy

What if the very foundation of how we understand light and time is based on a misunderstanding?

What if the very foundation of how we understand light and time is based on a misunderstanding? Let’s explore the paradox that Einstein sought to resolve and uncover a simpler way to make sense of light and time. To do that, we need to step back and examine how we got here.

The Null Result

It began in 1887 when Michelson and Morley sought to measure the Earth’s motion through the universe. At that time, scientists presumed that, like soundwaves through air, light traveled as a wave through an invisible medium called “aether.” The Earth was also believed to travel through the aether, creating an invisible aether wind that we couldn’t detect.

The experiment was designed to detect the aether wind by measuring variations in the speed of light depending on the Earth’s direction of travel. It would work like an ultrasonic anemometer, which measures wind speed using ultrasonic sound waves. Because sound travels slower upwind than it does downwind, measuring the time it takes for sound to travel to different ends of the device provides an accurate measure of wind speed and direction.

However, Michelson and Morley’s attempt to measure changes in the speed of light, despite Earth traveling in opposite directions at different times of the year, observed no such changes in the speed of light. In science, it’s known as a “null result.”

The Problem

Immediately the notion that light was a wave that propagates through an aether fell out of favor. Light appeared to be a particle moving through free space; a photon. However, Michelson-Morley presented another problem. The speed of the photon appeared to be the same regardless of any observer’s relative motion.

Normally, in classical mechanics, relative motion would affect the measured speed of an object. If you’re moving toward or away from a photon, you’d expect to see a change in its measured speed based on your own velocity relative to it.
However, the Michelson-Morley experiment (and others) suggests that no matter your relative motion, you always measure the same speed of light. This defies classical intuition.

If Bob measures a photon moving at 100 m/s northward (real photons move much faster, but let’s simplify) and you’re moving north at 90 m/s relative to Bob, classical expectations say you’d measure the photon moving past you at 10 m/s. Instead, you also measure it at 100 m/s—the same speed Bob measured.

This bizarre apparent motion of a photon made space and time seem elastic. Einstein resolved the discrepancy by proposing that time “dilated” (or slowed down) for objects moving at high velocities. From this perspective, the photon appears to zip by at the same speed for both you and Bob because your rate of time changes. In your frame, where time runs slower due to dilation, the photon still covers its distance at the invariant speed of light, c.

The Illusion

If we remember that time is not a bendy substance but represents comparative motion—how one motion relates to another, like comparing the rotation of the Earth to the flow of sand in an hourglass—we immediately run into a problem. We can’t actually observe a photon’s motion to compare it to anything.

Our only observations of light come directly from emitter-detector interactions. What we measure isn’t the photon’s motion but its effect when it reaches the detector. This means that our understanding of light’s speed is entirely inferred, built on assumptions and indirect measurements. These interpretations, however, rely on assumptions that contradict an analytical view of time. Time dilation assumes that time itself stretches or compresses to reconcile light’s constant speed with relative motion, but this assumes time is a malleable dimension rather than a comparative measure of motion.

The Solution

When our “photon” leaves the emitter Bob is stationary 100 meters away. It takes one second for the photon to reach Bob, so Bob records the speed as 100 m/s. Now, if you pass Bob in such a way that you detect the photon 200 meters from the emitter at two seconds, regardless of your velocity relative to Bob—whether 90 m/s or 90 million m/s—you also calculate the speed as 100 m/s. That valid interpretation of the experiment is far less mysterious! Why?

All our foundational equations about electromagnetism, going back before Maxwell, were based on radii. Knowing the Earth was moving and rotating during their experiments, scientists couldn’t measure from a fixed point in space. Instead, people like Faraday assumed that processes like induction depended on the distance from the source, not on the total displacement of the source and observer. As a result, the equations defining electromagnetism used r (radii, or relative distance) rather than m (absolute meters from a fixed spatial origin).

Now imagine a circular paper with gradients of color—black at the center, fading to lighter shades toward the edges. This gradient represents the energy density of a field radiating from the emitter. At a distance of r, this energy density corresponds to 1/r. The origin of the field is the emitter, and at any point r along the paper, your eye detects the field intensity when it reaches a threshold.

When the emitter releases light, the paper rotates, and the field slides past your detector. Your eye “sees the light” when it accumulates enough energy density. If your eye is twice as far from the origin, it takes twice as long for the threshold energy to accumulate. Importantly, this process depends only on the relative radial distance from the emitter to the detector, not on the emitter’s or detector’s velocity relative to anything else.

Reenvisioning light as an immediate interaction between two objects rather than a “particle” traveling between them eliminates the need for bendy spacetime because we don’t imagine a particle moving from point A to point B, but the timing of the interaction is wholly governed by the radial distance between emitter and detector. The belief in a “particle traveling between atoms” causes unresolvable paradoxes, but the view that atoms have a relationship governed by their radial distance resolves all of them. This perspective eliminates the need to imagine spacetime itself bending or warping, offering a cleaner explanation requiring fewer assumptions.

The rotating paper analogy mirrors light’s behavior. We can’t represent light as a wave propagating through a medium or a particle traveling through space. Instead, light emerges as a field interaction at a distance. This view explains the invariance of the “speed” of light and provides a unified framework for understanding wave-particle duality, entanglement, and “spooky action at a distance.”

Bob measures the photon 100 meters away in one second, and you measure the photon 200 meters away in two seconds. It doesn’t matter how fast you and Bob are traveling relative to each other or the light source; only your radial distance from the source determines the observation. The rotating paper analogy simplifies how we think about light, but how do we connect this abstract idea to a physical process in the real world?

Real World

How can we transfer the rotating paper analogy into real life? Different atoms aren’t connected by pieces of paper, are they? Of course not. But the analogy helps us visualize field interactions at a fundamental level. To briefly explain, indulge me in another speculation about how our understanding of electromagnetism might be incomplete.

While it’s true that positive and negative charges cancel each other out to result in zero net charge, I propose that the fields themselves don’t cancel. Instead, they combine, creating a neutral field that connects atoms and governs the interaction we call light. This neutral field may not only govern light but also influence inertia and gravity—a topic for future exploration.

When an atom undergoes an energy transition and releases a “photon”, the neutral field doesn’t propagate outward like a wave. Instead, the entire field rotates instantaneously. This rotation determines when a ‘photon’ of energy is transferred to another atom, based on the field intensity at varying radial distances—just like in the rotating paper analogy.

This perspective reframes how we think about photon interactions and opens the door to a deeper understanding of inertia, mass, and the fundamental nature of fields—a topic I’ll discuss later. This reinterpretation not only aligns with Maxwell’s equations but also challenges us to rethink the very nature of light.

Summary

The Michelson-Morley experiment exposed a fundamental problem with our classical understanding of light and motion, showing that light’s speed appears constant to all observers, regardless of relative velocity. Einstein’s solution—time dilation—revolutionized physics but defied analytical thinking about time. By reexamining light as a field interaction determined by radial distance, we can bypass the need for convoluted spacetime distortions while maintaining the invariance of light’s behavior.

The rotating paper analogy bridges abstract electromagnetic theory with intuitive visualization, demonstrating that light’s interactions depend on field intensities and relative distances, not velocities. This perspective challenges how we understand fields, suggesting that neutral fields connect atoms and govern the interaction we call light, operating at a radial distance—an idea reminiscent of “spooky action at a distance.”

This framework not only reinterprets light as a field interaction but also lays the foundation for exploring deeper truths about mass, motion, and the interconnected universe—concepts I’ll explore further in a book.

Stay present.

Understanding Spiritual Integrity

Spiritual integrity is our compass in a wavering world, guiding beliefs and actions towards authentic truth.

Integrity, as a concept, has been viewed through various lenses. One can discuss social integrity, aligning individual actions with societal norms and values. But, spiritual integrity aligns one’s beliefs, thoughts, and actions with truth and authenticity, enabling discernment between genuine facts and societal constructs or fallacies. Universal Principle’s primary focus lies firmly with spiritual integrity, even if that means, at times, diverging from the prevailing social norms.

The Interplay of Spiritual and Social Integrity

While spiritual integrity is linked with social integrity, the nuances separating them are essential. The customs, values, and beliefs lack depth and authenticity in a society steeped in low spiritual integrity. People virtue signaling values they never intend to uphold is plausibly the most significant factor in societal breakdown and poverty. It erodes trust, misallocates resources, obscures genuine opportunities, and breeds cynicism. It becomes a toxin.

Introduce a being of high spiritual integrity, we’ll call him Joe, into such a setting, and friction arises. Joe, anchored in truth, will discern the discrepancies and incongruities inherent in society’s values. This isn’t about being judgmental; it’s about recognizing that the prevailing societal ethics might not meet the rigorous standards set by spiritual integrity.

In the movie Idiocracy, a scenario occurs where a large firm convinces society to water plants with the electrolyte-containing beverage Brawndo because “it’s what plants crave!” Which causes the plants to die. The movie portrays low IQ as the culprit, but low integrity is the bigger problem.

Both society and Joe claim to care what plants crave. However, these problems are caused by society not legitimately caring about what they presuppose to claim, like what plants crave. Everyone chanting the slogan “It’s what plants crave” doesn’t care that they do not understand what plants crave, yet they enthusiastically claim to. Essentially, “I care about what plants crave” is a lie that they tell others that they may believe themselves. They lack integrity.

Joe now has a choice. Societal norms may demand certain behaviors that are out of line with his understanding of society’s needs, not Joe’s values. The identical projected value system generates two versions of the facts because one adheres to the system with integrity, and the other does not.

It’s here that Joe—and anyone practicing spiritual integrity—must strike a balance. Engaging in this self-work, one will see areas where societal or cultural norms diverge from genuine integrity. While it’s essential to adapt and coexist harmoniously within society, it’s equally crucial to maintain one’s core of truth. Bend, but don’t break.

When Joe faces the dilemma of confronting these misguided societal norms—which might bring repercussions—or allowing the plants (and society) to perish, he’s in a bind. Both paths carry significant consequences. Convenient access to spiritual truth is handy in those situations.

Navigating Reality with Spiritual Integrity

Spiritual integrity is the compass guiding you through the philosophical musing, “I think, therefore I am.” It’s the innate ability to discern truth from fallacy. Something is real in this universe because you’re observing this sentence with it. Actual observing is at the spiritual level; the body and brain are simply tools.

Consider the Romans in AD 180. They had fragments of mathematical wisdom—whole numbers, fractions, and even Pi. When the number line concept emerged, it wasn’t merely another mathematical idea. People almost universally recognized and accepted it because, at a deeper level, they were connecting with a spiritual truth. This wasn’t just about numbers—it was about the fundamental nature of existence mirrored in the pure logic of mathematics.

The spirit knows if the desires of body override clarity of mind. Our minds are susceptible to being swayed by societal constructs and biases; spiritual integrity serves as an anchor, cutting through the illusion. The trick is staying connected to it.

The Power of Self-Reflection

I regularly practice meditation and encourage others to embrace its benefits. Distancing oneself from societal judgment fosters deeper self-honesty. Within the sanctuary of meditation, reflecting on your day-to-day intentions becomes a clarifying and grounding exercise.

True spiritual integrity necessitates regular self-reflection. When we’re transparent with ourselves, we fortify our defenses against delusions, clarify what it means to reason and use critical thinking. We sharpen our sensitivity to the world’s inconsistencies by acknowledging our own occasional deviations from truth.

Daily dedication to deciphering your own self-illusions results in heightened intuition regarding mistruths others speak. An uncanny ability to know when someone is lying and what they are thinking can be obtained over time using this simple process. In many cases, an elevated clarity of the social context can indicate what may happen before it happens.

Conclusion

We’ve talked about how spiritual integrity differs from just following society’s rules, how it helps us see things clearly, and the deep understanding it brings when we look inside ourselves. This isn’t just a personal journey; we can all benefit from it. When we work on being true to ourselves, we make our own lives better and help others around us. Let’s commit to practicing spiritual integrity daily, challenging ourselves to be genuine, and inspiring others to do the same. Let’s make the world a more authentic place together.

Stay present.

Edward Dowdye Lives On

Professor Edward Dowdye (RIP) is massively underappreciated in physics, he had transformative observations that have yet to be officially recognized.

Professor Edward Dowdye (RIP) is massively underappreciated in physics, and it isn’t because he’s black. It’s because he dared to know better than Einstein and the official orthodoxy. He has transformative work that has yet to be officially recognized.

It’s obvious why this is. Because “disclosure” isn’t over yet. The public wasn’t given access to the truth; thus, Dowdye had to disappear.

Dowdye, you have been such an inspiration that it’s like I can feel you tapping on my shoulder, nagging on me. Thank you so much, no-wherever you are! The truth is leaking. And you remain a persistent positive force in that direction. Many have taken notice and are privately inspired by you despite deliberate attempts of concealment. Respect!

Fact: Proponents of General Relativity have no explanation for what appears to be visual confirmation that gravity does not effect light. Dowdye gives us what may be the most important visual of the 21st century: The absence of gravitational lensing where it is expected.

The white graphic animations are where General Relativity predicts the light to be observed from. The photography proves different.

Dowdye, you will live on forever in the hearts that you touched.

Stay present.

See the Light

I reinterpret light as a non-local phenomenon rather than a photon traveling at speed.

The observational evidence does not lie. The time for an electromagnetic (EM) wave to arrive at some other object is:

T=Dk (Time = Distance * [some normally constant factor] )

T=Dk has been experimentally shown to apply universally independent to any observer. It’s simply a reformulation of Maxwell’s equations, solving for the time it takes for EM induction to complete. Some describe this as “the speed of light is constant.” However, that interpretation is critically wrong.

In 1887, the Michelson-Morley Experiment provided strong evidence that the rate of EM induction remained constant, regardless of the Earth’s motion through the galaxy. Today it is accepted as a fact that the rate is constant.

T=Dk, derived from the above fact, means the duration it takes for a “photon” leaving object A to hit object B is purely based on their distance, regardless of their relative velocity to anything else in the universe. It applies independently to any observer. It’s a universal principle if you will.

What is our ultimate question?

If Bob thinks objects A and B are rapidly approaching, he views the photon as crossing a further distance. If Bob thinks he’s quickly approaching them, he considers the photon traveling a shorter length.

A photon will travel from object A to object B in 1 second when the objects are stationary, but when they are going 90% “the speed of light” in the direction of B, it still only takes 1 second because A and B are still at the same distance from each other. The photon has to cross a much further “distance” in the second scenario.

Our ultimate question is: How can a photon cross a distance in one second and then %190 of that distance, also in 1 second, without changing “speed,” or dilating time?

I have proven that time cannot dilate (here, and follow up here.) Unfortunately, Einstein didn’t understand the discipline of analytics very well. Nor do those who now reframe observations of the constant speed of light as “confirmations of Einstein’s theory.”

Einstein’s time dilation isn’t a theory but an invalid interpretation of the evidence. Mathematically, “dilating” the time dimension makes the equations come out, but dilating time has no physical meaning. There are analytical rules about what the data can mean as information. People should learn those rules.

The answer to the ultimate question is simple. There is no photon.

No object at speed can be expressed universally as T=Dk. T=Dk is the equation of a rate, not a velocity. It directly implies that light is a process with no actual thing traveling between. Light is point-to-point as if you were touching, but something about distance causes the process to take longer? No. Something causes the process to take longer, creating “distance.”

It literally means light IS spooky action at a distance. Non-locality is the present reality. In light of my proof about time, every observation of the constant speed of light implies a non-locality nature.

When light “travels” 190% further in the same amount of time, it “manifests the non-locality,” as if distance contracted. That 90% extra “distance” is meaningless to a non-local process. From the perspective of outside observers, the non-locale reality manifests itself as the appearance of “time dilation.”

Let’s review a previous point:

If Bob thinks objects A and B are rapidly approaching, he views the photon as crossing a further distance. If Bob thinks he’s quickly approaching them, he considers the photon traveling a shorter length.

Bob thinking that the objects are approaching him or that he’s approaching them is redundant. Yet not acknowledging the non-local reality makes it seem like all kinds of illogical contradictions are happening. Contradictions never occur; exclusively, it’s people that create them.

The Copenhagen interpretation was adopted before significant advances in information theory and analytics. Physicists should be encouraged to allow critical input from those who have sought deep understanding in both areas. The interpretation is not valid. The math “works,” but it is unnecessarily complicated trying to clear riddles that don’t exist.

Distance is not a tangible thing. It cannot contract. However, you can manifest the non-locality, realize the truth about distance, and manipulate that. Non-locality is what is most apparent to me, and the perception of distance is somewhat illusionary. I believe they can be conquered.

Stay present.

Grusch’s Multidimensionality and ET Magic

What are dimensions, and how it applies to potential physical tech.

I spend much of my professional time creating “dimensional models” for analytical consumption. I understand information theory, like most are acquainted with their nose. Let’s try to explain what dimensions mean in the context of David Grusch’s multidimensional “non-human” tech.

It does not take a Ph.D. to understand it. Indeed, Ph.D.s should not be confused and argue about it at all. Still, we’re learning that even Ph.D.s in physics only sometimes appreciate mathematical principles. In analytics, we must distinguish between the object of investigation and the analytical tools we use to investigate them.

When Grusch says “higher dimensional space,” he is being highly metaphorical. The analytically clean way to describe it as “space” is non-dimensional. It’s an imaginary nothingness. The dimensionality comes directly from the object of study.

Electromagnetic radiation has three tangential aspects. We model it using x, y, z dimensions. Collectively we refer to the three dimensions as “space,” but that is metaphorical. Electromagnetism is what we are modeling. That’s the thing. We have a 3D experience because we are of electromagnetism, with three tangential aspects, not because we live in 3D “space.”

Two dimensions allow you to chart things. Three dimensions enable you to model electromagnetism. If we observe motion, we add a time dimension and call it “spacetime.”

However, “bending” or running a transformation on any dimension cannot have any physical meaning. It confuses the analytical dimension with the object of study.

If you must distort a dimension to make your model work, you have made some wrong assumptions. It’s the equivalent of management not thinking sales numbers are high enough, so they tell the analytics department to multiply everything by 1.3. I would call that fraud.

Now let’s do some ET magic:

We understand that electromagnetism operates in a way where electric force is induced into magnetic and back again. Imagine a third force (doovetic) that acts tangent to both the electric and magnetic. Electric and magnetic could be induced to express themselves as doovetic under the right conditions.

You would construct a 4D space to model any ElectroMangniDoovetic static state. 5D to include its motion. That’s how another physical force would drive analysts (but maybe not physicist?) to add another dimension to their model.

Our biology is absent any matter employing such doovetic functionality. A creature made of such materials, or one aware of the doovetic force, could potentially redeploy their existence into the doovetic “realm” with technology analogous to a “transformer,” causing them to vanish from our ElectroMagnetic-constructed awareness. They could be slinking around as ElectroDoovetic (ED) or MagnetoDoovetic (MD), and we would need ElectroMangniDoovetic(EMD)-constructed sunglasses to see them.

If they return to an EM state, someone could represent that metaphorically as “coming from a higher dimensional space.” But honestly, it sounds more like they just don’t understand the phenomena.

When people are speaking like dimensions are material things, you have to be careful because they may mean it metaphorically: “Time flies.” But it’s also possible they literally mean some self-contradictory nonsense: “Gravity is a warp in spacetime.”

Stay present.

On a personal note. Much of what David Grusch said yesterday hit me viscerally with joy. I feel his passion for people who have endured “systematic suppression.” Keep up the good work, brave soldier!

And Stay Silent About Time, Physicists

Mathematical Proofs mean sit down, shut up, and listen. Don’t bend spacetime; manifest nonlocality.

I will have to be quite demanding about my request that physicists stop spouting off about “time.” Time is information, not a material that bends, stretches, or engages in any process. Time is the domain of information theory, and physicists may need help understanding it. Physicists who derived the Copenhagen Interpretation had yet to hear of it.

The intellectual environment around the topic of time today is nothing but intellectual garbage. Time is intrinsically tied to our psychological wiring. That means we have many cognitive distortions that yield thoughts and perceptions that would not pass a logical validity test. (huge foreshadow)

I’ve been appalled at the number of people claiming college credentials who have responded to my proof with, “Well, now you just need to find the observation that would prove it.” That’s not how proofs work, my friends. When confronted with a proof, you are supposed to sit down, shut up, and listen.

Mathematical Proofs

We must reflect on the distinction between what we observe ( measure, study ) and the mental abstractions we use to speak about those things.
A square is an abstract concept. The intended meaning of “square” is something that cannot be observed. We say that we “observe” objects in the shape of a square. Because “equal sides” is the definition, someone saying, “I found a square yesterday, and when I measured it, its sides were not equal,” sounds like they’re having a personal integrity crisis.

That’s how much of the gibberish about time sounds to me. I know people are more intelligent than that. The issue is that many have authoritatively, or even dictatorially so, asserted the exact same rubbish about time. Conveniently, the error hits humanity squarely in the biologically wired cognitive distortions about time that have them speaking metaphorically about it as if it “flies” or “passes.”

I have diligently forced my proof about time on as many physicists as I can afford to reach, and my only observation is how they all have zero to say. Rescue yourself from any intellectually compromised positions. There’s something new to learn.

Time

Time is a description of an object’s motion in terms of another object’s motion. Today, the unit “seconds” is the notion of some steady rate of cesium-133 decay. The observation is of motion. Time is the abstracted, evaluated concept. The observation is of two objects in motion.

Someone saying, “I found an observation of time dilating,” sounds like the dude saying, “I found a square with irregular sides.” Proof:

If gravity affects the rate time flows, we must create a time dimension to describe this rate. Then we have two contradictory time dimensions. One we claim is “dilating,” and one is used to describe the dilation rate. Somebody’s “time dimension” is a fraud.

The metaphorical account is, let’s say, metaphorical, and the other is consistent with what we mean about time. The rate of my mechanical watch is catastrophically affected by rapid water intake. I would sound pretty silly, suggesting ‘being flooded with water’ represented a change in the rate of time’s metaphorical flow, precisely like someone who “observed” an irregular square.

Conclusion

Time does not bend. It’s self-contradictory to suggest at the scientific level. Many physicists understand this, but the public must be aware because such physicists have been authoritatively excluded from public discussion.

It’s time to tell me why my proof is in error or shut up. I’m sorry to be so blunt, but it just has to be. Until a physicist can stop being tongue-tied, time is my expertise, and I’m happy to answer any questions, or rational refutations to my ideas.

This has significant ramifications about why light cannot be a photon. Thus, we don’t want to “bend” spacetime but manifest the nonlocality.

I hope to live long enough to explain why.

Stay present.

Special shout out to one Robert Bennett for significantly accelerating the maturity rate of these ideas… or was that time accelerating? 😉

LIGHTS ALL ASKEW IN THE HEAVENS

Psychological techniques used to pass fraudulent information support notions of intentional deception to push General Relativity

November 10th, 1919, the New York Times (known globally for their unquestionable authoritative voice) announced that Einstein’s theory of light had been “proved” by an eclipse expedition. A century later, it is empirically observable that Author Eddington’s data cannot confirm light bending around the Sun. Had the observation been authentic, it still wouldn’t prove anything, and an extremely robust study by a NASA engineer demonstrates that gravity does not affect light.

Scientific review of Arthur Eddington’s work shows that valid data was discarded that would have invalidated the observation. Essentially he cherry picked the data points that fit and dismissed the rest. Subsequent studies do validate the observation. However, the cause of light bending around the sun underscores how disingenuous it was for anyone to suggest that anything had been “proven.”

Laboratory experiments show that plasma causes light to refract. It turns out that the Sun is surrounded by an enormous atmosphere of invisible plasma known as the corona. That means the corona will deflect light. Therefore, to determine if gravity bends light, you can’t just have one observation of light bending around the Sun and consider the matter “proven.” Empirical testing must occur to ensure the plasma is not 100% responsible for the effect.

Saying that one observation of light bending around the sun “proves that gravity bends light” is the formal logical fallacy “affirming the consequent.” My favorite example is:

"If Bigfoot is real, we might hear him cracking twigs as he walks in the forest. I hear twigs breaking. Bigfoot is real."

That is the same disingenuous logic the New York Times used when suggesting Relativity had been “proven,” and it’s as fraudulent and dishonest as cherry-picking data.

Sadly, other deceitful press releases have also suggested that “gravity lensing” has been observed with zero effort to test if plasma is causing the effect.
Some papers indicate they detect deflection after subtracting for the plasma around the Sun. However, the theorized gravitational effect drops off quickly, making the results incredibly difficult to discern from the effects of plasma. Dubiously, the error bars are more significant than the effect they are trying to detect. They didn’t say, “we detected gravitation lensing with a p-value of < 0.2” It’s not a definitive answer.

Fortunately, Dr. Edward Dowdye, former NASA engineer, university professor of mathematics, and internationally recognized expert in Atomic Physics, Optics/LASERs/Satellites, thought of a way to make a definitive distinction between plasma and gravitational effects.

He examined the “collected images and the astrophysical data of the stars orbiting about Sagittarius A*, a region thought to contain a supermassive black hole.” It’s the most rigorous study into the question that I know and soundly definitive. The expected results from Relativity do not exist.

A Star orbits a black hole exhibiting gravitational lensing as predicted by the Light Bending Rule of General Relativity as presented in the Textbooks, Literature and Lectures

Star orbits a black hole showing no lensing effects as observed at the galactic center

Dowdye had some great graphics explaining the observations on his website extinctionshift.com which unfortunately no longer exists since his death, but can be found on the Wayback Machine. You can read his paper, “Gauss’s Law for Gravity and observational evidence reveal no solar lensing in empty vacuum space,” which tediously and thoroughly lays out the facts.

Objects around Sagittarius A*
White animations are the predicted observations of Relativity that are not observed.

I see nothing but fraud, quack logic, and gaslighting from those asserting that Relativity has observational support. They’re the same people that would attempt to fraudulently gaslight you out of $100. Those behaviors are immoral, and they’re turning our society into irrational idiots.

People no longer understand the distinction between shaming people into wrongness and intellectually explaining. I’m incredulous over the number of college graduates, scientists even, who don’t understand that logical proofs are not confirmed or invalidated by experimental evidence. Same with thinking observations can confirm mathematical principles.

People have a moral obligation to have some discernment to protect their brethren from being infected with bogus information. I feel that it’s part of my job to understand and discern how basic scientific principles apply to my work. I think of it as having integrity.

I recommend that people review all the basic logical fallacies, but maybe start with these:

Ad Hominem (“conspiracy theorist”)
Straw Man (“you’re suggesting this…”)
False Dichotomy (“are you going to buy my bullshit today or tomorrow”)
Appeal to Authority (“DOD says Swamp Gas.”, “Scientists say…”,) etc.

Then practice identifying them. The enemy is tearing away away at you, so you have to pump your own iron. You can build your muscle of discernment and become bulletproof to absurd lies.

Stay present.

Help Me Be Wrong

Find someone to invalidate my proof and I will buy you dinner.

As one who enjoys the scientific processes as much as a good mystery or psychological thriller, I am often tasked with proving myself wrong. However, after 40 years I have failed miserably to prove my assertions about time wrong.

I need your help (or anyone you can recruit) to explain to me (with reasoning they would publicly endorse) on why the following is not a proof that time cannot be something that warps, bends, or a place a creature could come from:

Bob Lazar has a creepy video where he proports to explain how the aliens traverse long distances. They “Distort or warp or bend” the fabric of spacetime, essentially putting spacetime in motion.

However, if we wanted to duscuss the rate ‘warps’ occur in ‘spacetime,’ we would be required to construct a new 5th dimension called “time” to articulate how warps in spacetime occure over time. Therefore, such warps cannot literally be in (or of) that which we call time. It is a direct logical contradiction.

If you can help me find someone who can explain why that is not proof, I will buy you dinner! Seriously! I’m desperate. I’m positive I just reduced everything Bob said to meaningless absurdity. Still, everyone tells me I’m insane for thinking I could even have proof, but nobody will explain why my proof is invalid.

I have many people who think academia is a criminal syndicate and that my proof is valid, but obviously, they’re crazy conspiracy theorists also. After 40 years of having my cognitive senses invalidated with no actual argument, I’m about to conclude that I might be correct and everyone else is wrong.

Please rescue me from that inevitable state of arrogance! If you can find a public voice who can invalid that proof, I will buy you a $100 gift card to your favorite restaurant.

ChatGPT Knows What Time It Is

ChatGPT clarifies that time does not bend and isn’t a place creatures come from.

Clearly, ChatGPT knows nothing. However, other than just spewing out consensus reality with an authoritative tone, we can use its sophisticated linguistics tools to coax out otherwise obscure truths about time hidden under “imprecise or metaphorical language.” None of which were direct lies, but the message YOU heard very well might have been blazingly invalid.

As a competent analyst of reality, I begin my inquest into what ChatGPT can tell us about time by delineating what is actually observed vs what is intellectual in nature.

After some banter about the distinction I’m trying to make…

It made a colloquial error describing distance as a physical thing being measured, which it will later correct when it agrees with me that temperature is a bend in space-distance 🙂

But first, let’s get to the heart of the matter.

I bet most people didn’t expect it to say that!

And it knows the difference between General and Special.

As a professional expert in dimensional modeling, I knew dimensions (like time) are abstract analytical tools that creatures can’t come from. However, everyone like Jacque Vallee, who has US Intelligence connections regarding aliens, seems blissfully unaware and hostile to the notion. Weird.

This is excellent stuff. ChatGPT says no thing that could bend or is a location should be construed as “time.” Notice that the last clause invokes time as some natural phenomena that can be studied, contrary to everything else it just said. I assume it’s just because it’s how people talk…

Give that boy a gold star! However, given how often I had to coerce it into clarifying with precise language, the statement felt a bit hypocritical.

In my effort to be thorough, I challenged it several more times on the physical mechanism of gravity, and it regurgitated typical relativity banter that linguistically appeared to contradict its assertion that time is a concept. You can go around in many circles. (Relativity and its many contradictions, circular arguments, and disciples who don’t understand that contradictions prove it wrong) However, when directly confronted with the paradox…

I think ChatGPT did a good job of exposing the actual rational meaning of General Relativity, and nearly everyone’s understanding is a “colloquial or metaphorical” idea of a literal time moving faster is invalid. Nor is it a place that creatures come from. The notion that a dimension could even represent a substance that can bend, travel itself at a “rate”, or a location stems from the massive confusion around the “colloquial or metaphorical” usage of the term “time.”

General Relativity uses a framework that must bend to describe gravity, and those bends are not a physical cause, just the highly confusing model. Observably nobody who thinks time can bend can demonstrate the ability to create gravity, meaning they have no clue what causes it. When you create gravity, that’s when you get to pontificate authoritatively about it’s causes.

Spirit manifests as both mind and body. Only by holding them as mutually exclusive can you see how they are one.

The time is now, as long as you are present.

Stay present.