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.

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.

Not all Y are X

Some modern myths that our world stem from confused reasoning as flawed as this: “If Bigfoot exists, he will break twigs while walking through the forest. We’ve proved Bigfoot because we just detected a twig break.”

The modern world wouldn’t make this error, right? How did Einstein get on the front of Time magazine? “If gravity bends time, then light will bend around the Sun. Light does bend around the Sun; Einstein is man of the year!”

Not all cracked twigs are caused by mythical creatures, and not all alterations of light are caused by irrational bends in time. Actually, a gaggle of informed researchers knows that plasma bends light, and there is enough plasma around our star to account for the observed parallax.

However, what’s the gross interpretation by the public? “Time bends.” Something completely irrational.

Time 102 – See the Light

A widespread deception began immediately after the valid equations for light were first published. While Maxwell’s equations didn’t assume to describe the nature of light, people assumed light must be electromagnetic because Maxwell’s equations appeared to describe light. Light is electromagnetism, so they were correct. However, a confusing narrative was immediately pushed on the people that defied Maxwell’s descriptions.

They started using language about a “photon” moving from point A to point B. Then point out that if points A and B are moving quickly compared to some observer C, that photon reaches point B in the same amount of time as it travels between the stationary A/B pair. “How is this possible,” they ask. “The photon traveled different distances at the same time, at the same ‘speed,'” they exclaim. To explain this, they told people that “time bends” relative to its velocity (compared to any relative C).

However, nothing about Maxwell’s equations described “a particle traveling a distance, at a velocity.” The math explicitly states that the reaction is relative to their distance. That represents a process occurring between two points that takes t = cd ( time = some factor times the distance ) to complete. Light is a process; it’s not traveling a distance. The process begins relatively instantly and has a duration dependent on it’s distance.

Their mind-boggling puzzle begins with the imagined ball traveling between A and B. It’s just a lie. Maxwell’s equations don’t suggest it, and no observations suggest it. Trying to have a photon framework makes time and light-speed effects very confusing. Understanding t = cd means time never bends. Light changes its induction rate when traveling through different mediums, so “the medium” is one factor of c. Light is a process that takes duration based on the distance and the medium between the two objects. This level of simplicity reminds me of Occom’s razor. Meanwhile, “modern physics” is full of time paradoxes.

You will never find anything paradoxical or contrary evidence to the idea that EM effects occur instantly, but the effect is a process that takes a certain amount of time (based on the distance and the medium between them.) EM is virtually instant, and so is gravity, which is the actual universal speed limit.

Time doesn’t bend. “Time” is a type of analysis. The universe is in motion. We’re just trying to describe it. Enjoy the process!

Time 101

“There is so much politics in science now… it has created an Idiocracy of doublethink… where people now accept ideas that are mutually exclusive to reality.” – Dr. Edward Dowdye

Time is an intellectually generated quantitative value derived by comparing one object’s motion to another’s. We relate things to rotations of the Earth, orbits of the Moon, sands in an hourglass, and cycles of cesium-133 atoms.

Contrary to modern myths, time is not something you move through, something that is moving, or a substance that can bend or dilate. Time is a pure mathematical abstraction, just like a square. You can prove the area of a square, but you cannot find a square in nature. You can find something in the shape of a square, but squares do not exist; they are mathematical concepts. The same is true of time.

The scientific method involves observations and evaluations. I always remind people that it is critical in any inquest to be diligent in separating observation from evaluation and not confuse the two. Nobody observes “time.” The observation is of motion, and time is the intellectually derived evaluation. 

As intellectual creatures, we often use mathematical abstractions to communicate and think about those motions. We set up to confuse our abstractions with reality. Even I use language like “move through time” when describing analytical results with clients. I don’t mean it literally, but it literally means something moving “through time.”

Before Western Science dismissed it without evidence, people had known for thousands of years that there is only a “now.” Motion means “being here” now and then “being over there” in the exact same now.

An object at point 1 and time 3 and then point 7 at time 6 is the definition of a line. A line is not something in motion, but it’s an excellent way to chart motion. However, people can easily confuse the two concepts if they are not disciplined about separating observation from evaluation.

An excellent example is the highly dubious logic, “Atomic clocks in GPS satellites get out of sync; therefore, that proves time is bending.” A sand timer in a spinning centrifuge will empty faster than one not. Does that mean centrifuges warp time? So why would anyone think anything that messed up atomic clocks (temperature, electromagnetic radiation, gravity) is a warp in time?

As former NASA Engineer and University Professor of Mathematics Dr. Edward Dowdye has pointed out (but neglected by the mainstream), there is sufficient evidence suggesting a reasonable (non-irrational-time-bendy) physical cause:

Every claim that “we proved time bent” can be reinterpreted similarly. Forces act on clocks, and if you interpret that as “Oh, that was just time bending,” you are fraudulently refusing to account for errors in your clock. And unfortunately, that scam is rampant today.

The rational view of time is that the universe is in motion (within a “static now”) due to the presence of forces. Humanity understood this, but about the turn of the 20th century, scientific institutions started to conflate evaluations with observations regarding both time and motion. However, people who have made it a discipline to thoughtfully differentiate what they can see and touch from what they imagine, find the truth blatantly obvious.

Because “time dilations” are a meaningless irrational concept, there are significant ramifications to our understanding of light. In “Time 102 – See the Light,” I’ll dissect what is calculated vs. actually measured regarding the “speed” of light. Coming soon…