Announcing the Hidden Double Inversion that Einstein Left Lurking within his Special Theory of Relativity

Introduction

At an advanced school or maybe not until university, we were all taught a piece of utter nonsense about relativity and instead of challenging what we were taught and actually just thinking relativity through like critically thinking human beings, we all just accepted the nonsense that we were taught as if we were mindless zombies. In 1972, (classical) theoretical physics found itself locked inside an intellectual “Hotel California”. This article explains the key that breaks you out of the mental-jail that theoretical physicists wantonly walked into by blindly adopting all of Einstein’s faulty special theory of relativity in 1905.

The Relationship Between Space and Time

This relationship is wonderfully summed up in the CIPM’s formal definition of a metre that was first promulgated by the CIPM committee in 1980. A metre is defined by the CIPM as 1/c seconds. The missing question has been; what is 1/c seconds?

That is too easy for most people, so I will help, 1/c seconds means 3.335 nanoseconds.

You have been trained to think of space in terms of a reciprocal velocity. Now, as that is impossible for me, then it is very hard for me to imagine a mind that can actually think of measuring space in such deranged reciprocal velocity terms. The CIPM’s formal definition of a metre of free-space is that it is a very short period of time.

The question that we now need to ask ourselves is that as space has the same units as time, what is the ratio between the two factors of space and time? Notice that in this ratio the units of seconds will cancel out and we will be left with a unit-less ratio, a simple numerical constant of the Universe that is just a pure number. Could that ratio be just the number one? It could not because space and time are definitely not the same thing. So we need to find a number that is not just one, but has a subtle similarity to one. This magical numerical ratio that we seek was first discovered and employed by Hero of Alexandria in the first century AD, we call it “i” such that i² = -1 and i⁴ =1.

We have a great word for i, we call it the imaginary operator. We can either say that space is just imaginary time or we can say that the depth of history is just an imaginary dimension of space. Both work just as well, but we all experience space as being more immediate for us than time, so we can run with the simpler (or perhaps arbitrary) choice that the depth of history is just an imaginary dimension of space measured in units of i-seconds and that space is measured in units of seconds, as it has been correctly (in my opinion) defined by the CIPM since 1980. The CIPM stands for the Comité International des Poids et Mesures. That title is French, it is the global coordinating oversight body of all governmental measurement authorities

As Einsteins Tram Moves Away from The Bern Town Clock

Einstein noticed that as his tram moved away from the Bern town clock he would see a slowing of the Bern town clock and a red shift in the light reflecting off it. The space-time reference frame in Einstein’s tram and the space-time reference frame for a stationary observer of the clock are both identical and both maintain the constant space-time ratio of i. It is just that Einstein observes a distortion of the town clock’s frame of reference because he is moving away from it. Had he instead imagined moving towards the town clock, then he would have observed a quickening of the clock rate and a blue shift in the light reflected from it. The town clock maintains an even strain, it is only Einstein’s view of the clock that becomes distorted by his own relative motion through the town clock’s space-time frame of reference.

All the equations of Special Relativity define the extent of distortions that one will observe where one’s motion through the space-time of the observed reference frame must be taken into account. There is nothing real about these distortions whatsoever, but we must always just adjust for the distortions that we are bound to observe.

A Special Relativity Diagram Showing Relative Kinetic Scale.

Time and space can be measured by any clock locked to that space-time reference frame. In order to analyse a space-time reference frame, we must enumerate the apparent rates of change of everything observed from within that reference frame, using for comparison any notional quantum-clock (atomic clock) that is locked with the observer’s space-time frame of reference. I will employ two reference frames, R and Q where the R and Q reference frame systems are on a collision course with a closing velocity of V (V is the same as the v/c fraction in classical wave theory).

There is no such thing as absolute kinetic energy, kinetic energy can only ever be relative kinetic energy and that relative kinetic energy only means anything if the two reference frames, or elements of them anyway, will collide. The R and Q reference frames are utterly interchangeable and symmetrical, but I will make the arbitrary selection of frame R as the frame of reference from within which I will draw my diagram.

V is the v/c fraction in Einstein’s confused thinking. Einstein’s confusion arises from his understandable thinking that light moves at a velocity of c where he knows what a meter is. Einstein should not have chosen to know what a metre is but he had to make a start somewhere. Unfortunately, he worked on his special theory first, before he worked on his general theory. Once his general theory had told him correctly that he did not know what a metre was, he needed to revisit the special theory to put it right. This was not very hard, specially for a person of his great flexibility and talent, but for some extraordinary reason, he never found the few minutes needed to do that.

4a. Special Relativity Diagram, Vital Notes

In about 2015, I refined my 1964 (age-14) schoolboy doodle of the R-Q clock-rates diagram shown above. This shows the first time derivative of quantum-clock (atomic-clock) coordinate-space. This reconciled perfectly with Einstein’s traditional equation for relative kinetic energy. I found that I was obtaining once again, as I always had done ever since 1964, that Einstein had missed out a polarity inversion (negative sign) in his equation. In my opinion, Einstein must have got the same polar inversion sign in his answers too, but I guess that he just ignored that inversion because we all know that kinetic energy is positive.

This thought (that kinetic energy is positive) is true and follows our natural everyday experience with it. However, we do need the polar inversion sign because the energy in every nucleon of matter is gravitationally inverted with respect to the event-horizon of time-now. As all matter is gravitationally inverted energy and kinetic energy is known to be positive, we absolutely must find that we get a matching collapse in the illusion of both reference frames, appearing from each other’s perspectives, to have a greater (line of sight in the collision direction) blue-shift clock-rate-scale variance ratio, than the reality of no clock-rate scale variance at all.

Conclusion

Please bear in mind that the universe actually works with quantum mechanics and that quantum mechanics does not agree with our natural experience of classical mechanics. The question is this, would we like the universe to make complete unified sense or not? This model connects everything and explains why the proton appears to us to be about one thousand times smaller than the emitted gamma wavelength and it shows the strong nuclear force to be just gravity at the nucleonic scale, and so it simplifies our view of the universe to an absurd extent and explains everything, even explaining how light appears to slow in glass. I claim Occam’s razor here; why should I tolerate the absurd complication of a discrete strong nuclear force when by eliminating it with my gravitational explanation, I can suddenly understand why light slows in any transparent media or how it is for instance that my own eye lenses can focus. Therefore, I must consider quantum-relativity. Quantum Relativity is imposed upon us by the instant action at a distance expected by Niels Bohr since about 1920 and finally proven to be correct by Clauser and Freedman in 1972.

Appendices

1) Why did Einstein leave his relativity work unfinished?

Einstein produced the Special Theory of Relativity in 1905. It was quickly adopted and Einstein suddenly became quite famous. He worked on alone and in 1915 he came up with his General Theory of Relativity, that got him true fame and he quickly found himself in a totally pointless position as some kind of professor at the Kaiser Wilhelm Society. All this went to his head including many advances of a distracting nature, for example, one distracting advance of many came from Marilyn Monroe herself. He ought to have noticed that his Special Theory and his General Theory were totally incompatible and he ought to have gone back to fix his Special Theory of Relativity in order to make it reconcile with his perfectly correct General Theory. In my opinion, he was simply too lazy or too distracted by fame and other work to do that and so he left his relativity work incomplete and containing a substantial polarity error in his understanding of universal energy and matter and the actual nature of, and the relationship between, space and time.

2) Everything about relativity forms a ludicrously simple topic.

But it is far too hard, or in fact it seems to be impossible, for anybody who has been hypnotised into a completely false understanding of the nature of time. The present moves backwards from the static or standing 3D event-horizon of time-now into an imaginary historic space at the rate of one i-second of historic depth per second of spatial displacement. For example; take this piece of tautological nonsense: E₀ =mc². This is a well-known but absurd statement that is in fact utterly misleading because mass is made up of energy trapped into nucleonic gravitational energy holes. In order to reconcile this absurd piece of human hubris with our reality, we need to know that c has the value i and that i² = -1. We replace “m” with Em, where Em means the energy that is gravitationally trapped in the nucleonic matter of “m”, and so:

E₀ = -E_m

which is a kind of tautology in terms of what matter is. Instead of reading “minus” for the inversion sign in there, one should read “inverted” or “gravitationally-inverted”.

3) Explaining some of the terms mentioned in my diagram.

Quantum-time; is the space-time generated by a quantum-clock (i.e. an atomic clock).

Clock-rate-space; is the first time derivative of clock position space, instead of clock position we plot the clock rates, that is the rate at which space and history-space are formed by the local clock for the local reference frame, together in harmony.

Clock rate-space has two dimensions; the two dimensions of the rate-space exist because the rates are building both the history-space and the space of the local reference frame in our 2D section of the 4D space-time reference frame in numerical quadrature and in perfect harmony with each other.

FNP number plane; FNP stands for flat natural polarity, this is similar to (virtually identical to) our mathematician’s complex numerical plane, this diagram shows how these (imaginary axis) numbers exist everywhere in nature and how the universe employs them to build both (linear-clock) space and (rotational-clock) history-space together for us in harmony.

Historic emitter entanglement; until its detection within another mass frame, every quanta remains entangled with the historic emitter mass frame. The entangled system of historic emitter state and the emitted (entangled-pair) quanta state is only determined when one of the quanta acts within another mass-frame somewhere. Until that happens, the universe choses not to decide the quantum state yet. Hence the instant action demonstrated with entangled quanta from 1972 onwards. How on Earth did you think that the universe could choose to build the life molecules? “Random dice throwing?”; rid your mind of that utter nonsense. Einstein stated that “God does not play dice with the Universe”, well-said Albert, correct, the Universe never actually plays dice, it merely pretends to because for some reason that is not really that hard to understand, it needs you to remain confused about these rather obvious issues.