Unifying Theory

Essay on Physics - The Birth of our Perceptible Universe

Introduction of the Essay on the Birth of our Perceptible Universe

This document presents a semantic approach to the existential topic of the birth of our perceptible universe. This topics is also critical to philosophy and possibly theology, hence the designation “existential”. I wish I were a scientist, but I am not. Perhaps, in a way, that is for the best.
How did I develop an interest in this topic, as well as in astronomy and science in general? I can't quite explain it. At school, I struggled with mathematics and physics, despite my interest in these subjects. I suppose it’s just life. We do not wake up each morning, check our smartphones, open our calendars and planners, and decide that from 13:30 to 14:53 we will love blue and literature, and then from 14:53 to 17:22 we will love red and physics. We don't decide our interests; we simply realize that we love someone or that we enjoy physics or the arts. All we can do is choose whether we want to try to build a relationship with someone or study a particular subject. Yet, we must acknowledge that, despite our best efforts, we might fail in building that relationship or understanding physics or the arts. We might even fail in both: the relationship and our studies. Or we might succeed.
Nevertheless, let us return to our subject: how did an amateur like me come to write this document? The most reasonable answer is randomness in life, also known as “social serendipity”. For my critics, the simplest formulation would be, “Shit happens”.
It all began one evening when I was drinking a beer with a friend -a chemist- who started explaining the curvature of space-time. For some reason, I found the concept very interesting. However, as a linguist (semanticist), I had a problem with the formulation of this theory. When I got home, I continued to think about our conversation and began doing something I never, ever do: I started writing down my thoughts on this topic. I became so deeply focused and concerned about the matter that I felt the need to document my thoughts to keep track of my logical reasoning. I usually dislike writing and reading -I really do-. There are many reasons why some consider me a loser, and this might be a good one. Yet, for completely unexplainable reasons, on that day, I decided to write my thoughts on this topic. Perhaps it was the worst day in the history of science: me developing a genuine interest and inserting myself into the realms of our most rational thinkers.
Once at home, while writing about this topic, I first realized that the terms time, space, energy, and matter are crucial to the concept of the curvature of space-time. Immediately after recognizing this, my semantic mind felt the need to define these essential terms appropriately. In doing so, long before I could form a clear opinion on the curvature of space-time, my theory on the birth of our universe spontaneously and logically emerged. However, because life can be difficult -at least from the perspective of my critics in the scientific community when they consider my existence- it felt so good to write that I continued. Initially, I thought I would write just a couple of pages and send them to the friend who had introduced me to this topic against my will (yes, he is the one the scientific community should hate, not me). Eventually, my theory on the birth of our universe developed, along with definitions of time travel, of our continuum, and the elementary particle, as well as a few supplementary topics, including a demonstration that 1 + 1 ≠ 2. An important semantic commentary on E=mc² led to subsequent suggestions about space travel. Unexpectedly, this essay managed to link subatomic to astronomical phenomena.
That said, the context is now set, and we are almost ready to begin with my definitions of the cornerstone terms of this topic: time, energy, matter, and space… Almost. Indeed, before starting, it seems important to clarify that I have no pretensions. This document is written by an amateur for other amateurs and, above all, from a linguistic-semantic vantage point…

 

 

Time

Empirically, everyone knows that time is composed of three elements: the past, the present, and the future. Furthermore, no one can deny the dynamic aspect of time. Each point on a temporal line moves from the future to the past, passing through the present, as if we are progressing toward the future. Even in daily colloquial expressions, we observe this dynamic nature of time; we say that “time goes by”, but we don’t say that “space goes by”.
Another observable characteristic of time is that it cannot be “seized” or fixed. Indeed, the past no longer exists, and the future does not yet exist, while the present is a fleeting moment that quickly approaches zero -a boundary that tends not to exist-. As soon as I write these words -or you read them- they already belong to the past. We remember the past, and we can imagine the future, but we cannot physically shake hands with someone living in the past or the future. Our perception and senses are confined to the present.
Additionally, although time is composed of three elements, it remains one-dimensional; that is, it progresses only in one direction: from the past to the future.
Finally, time is a continuum. Our measurement of time is “quantized” into seconds, days, years, and so forth. However, time itself is a one-dimensional dynamic continuum. Continuum does not equal quantization. Our measurement of time is quantized because, by definition, any measurement involves quantization. On a strict semantic level, regarding the double-slit experiment, what is referred to as a “measurement” in physics is actually a detection. A measurement is the action of applying a quantized unit of measurement to the observed element or phenomenon. However, we don’t want to digress too far from our current topic: the definition of time. Consequently, considering the observable characteristics, we can define time as a one-dimensional dynamic continuum with three components.
Furthermore, we might wish to add a couple of observations about time that relate more to our perception of it than to its intrinsic characteristics. Indeed, we can perceive time only through movement, which might explain why we consider time to be a dynamic element. Perhaps time exists only in our perception of movement or because of our perception of movement. Our conception of time is inherently linked to our perceptual abilities, which are not perfectly stable but fluctuate. Since our general perception fluctuates, so too does our perception of time. This fluctuation gives the impression of relativity regarding time, or even the illusion that time is not fixed. Our mental state can also influence our perception. When our conscious thoughts are dominated by fear or pain, our perception of the world -and of time- changes completely compared to when we feel joy and pleasure. Good times often seem to pass faster than bad times.
Addressing the notion that time runs faster or slower in space compared to on Earth, we consider the twins experiment. The phenomenon of aging also depends on the forces acting on our constituent atoms. One can imagine that weightlessness in space affects our atoms differently than gravity does on the ground. This could explain the impression that the twin in space ages less than the twin on Earth. It appears we look younger in space due to the way external forces act on our atoms. It has nothing to do with time being faster or slower. Additionally, since gravity influences the particles constituting our bodies and brains, it necessarily affects our perception of time. Just as our general perceptual abilities are shaped by our senses, physical context, and existential and emotional situations, our perception of time is conditioned by these factors; however, “absolute time” itself remains an invariable one-dimensional dynamic continuum: time never changes and cannot be manipulated, not even when traveling at the speed of light. This notion often arises from a poor definition of terms. At the speed of light, gravity might affect our molecular structure, including our brains. As previously mentioned, due to this gravitational alteration, our bodies might appear younger, and our perception of time might slow down to the point where we cannot perceive it at all. However, time itself remains totally unchanged. At the speed of light, it is our perception of time that changes, not time itself. Make no mistake -at least not this one-.
A continuum is intangible and cannot be affected by anything, not even by the universe itself. Time is a one-dimensional dynamic continuum. The term “dynamic” necessarily implies that it contains energy -or at least relates to energy-. We can only perceive time through motion, whether that is the motion of Earth on its axis (day/night), its motion around the sun (years and seasons), or even the motion of our molecules as our bodies age. All our time-detection and measuring devices are based on motion, even atomic clocks. Our motion-based perception may be another reason why we perceive time as a variable element. Dynamic and energy are intertwined. Ultimately, whether time itself contains energy or our perception of times involves energy, there is necessarily a relationship between time and energy from our vantage point…

 

Energy

Building on our previous conclusion, it seems necessary to continue this discussion with a definition of the term “energy”. As an axiom of the present theory, we describe energy as an invisible, odorless, and intangible element. Consequently, energy is undetectable and imperceptible. Energy can only be detected and measured through the motion of matter -particles and all possible bodies-. The greater the amplitude of any movement, the more energy is involved. I would define any movement of matter as an “energy manifestation”.
Subsequently, it is appropriate to enumerate the possible behaviors of matter that necessarily involve energy: translational motion (from A to B), spin (rotation around itself), fusion, fission, orbiting, and collision. Collision is actually a family of interactions, as it can result in fusion, fission, particles bouncing off each other, or even orbital interaction, depending on the intensity and angles of the collision.
Current scientific knowledge also mentions static energy or energy at rest. However, paradoxically, from the infinitely small to the infinitely large, nothing is absolutely motionless. Perpetual movement is the norm; absolute motionlessness is the exception and is probably impossible, except in the total absence of energy. This leads me to reformulate the definition of the term “energy”. Any static object is composed of atoms, and thus electrons orbiting nuclei, representing circular movement. When two objects rest on each other, the contact point consists of electrons orbiting a nucleus in a circular pattern. As soon as this circular pattern is interrupted, for instance, by decay or a chemical reaction, the object changes its composition or appearance and is no longer at rest. Therefore, what we consider rest is actually nothing more than an undisturbed circular movement of electrons: a type of movement. Consequently, there is no such thing as static energy.
Furthermore, there are only two possible movements: rectilinear and circular. All other types of movement are simply combinations of these two.
Additionally, we observe two types of forces: attraction and repulsion. Axiomatically, these two forces represent two forms of energy. Indeed, wherever forces are present, energy is involved, as forces systematically set objects and particles in motion. Attraction and repulsion are forms of motion.
Thus, empirically, we observe rectilinear and circular movements, as well as attractive and repelling forces.
Finally, from a semantic perspective on a broader analytical scale, it seems appropriate to define energy as an object or entity in opposition to continua -such as time or space-. Energy and matter are the “actors”. A continuum serves as a container in which objects interact with each other without any possible interaction with the continuum itself. For the sake of semantic clarity, objects such as matter and energy, along with continua like space and time, are referred to as “elements”. Metaphorically, our space-time continuum is the stage on which the actors -energy and matter- perform the play of the birth and life of our perceptible universe…

 

 

Space/Emptiness and Matter

In this chapter, space and matter will be defined together. According to our standard perception of these two elements, they are necessarily and unavoidably defined in opposition to each other -meaning that space is everything that is not matter, and matter is everything that is not emptiness/space-. More accurately, what is neither matter nor energy is space, what is neither energy nor space is matter, and what is neither space nor matter is energy. However, in our conventional understanding of life and physics, matter and nothingness are the two elements that are traditionally opposed to each other.
Additionally, it seems crucial to underscore the following semantic truth: space = emptiness = nothingness = void. These four terms have the exact same meaning. For example, any container that seeks to create space must be emptied. Space is absolute emptiness or void, representing the total absence of matter and energy. It is an infinitely large continuum with an infinite number of dimensions. The best schematic representation of space is a sphere. We require only three dimensions for our orientation purposes within space; however, space itself contains an infinity of dimensions -directions- much like a sphere, in contrast to time, which flows only in one direction. Space cannot be folded, contracted, or extended. The same can be said for emptiness; emptiness cannot be folded, contracted, or extended. Emptiness cannot interact with anything due to its nature. This is an undeniable axiom. Like time, space is absolutely intangible because it represents absolute emptiness, absolute nothingness, and absolute void. There is no possibility of interaction with absolute nothingness or absolute void. Space and time are two continua, two containers, and not actors.
At this stage of our current theory, we recognize that only the interaction between energy and matter could have given birth to our universe, as space and time cannot interact with any objects. Thus, the “equation” of the birth of our perceptible universe is resolved much sooner than expected. We have not yet defined matter, which is what we will address now.
As previously mentioned, matter is defined by its exclusion from space/emptiness -and energy-. What is not space is matter. Since our theory implicitly relies on the possibility of a Big Bang, for better visualization and conceptualization, we will describe matter as a single particle -a unitary and coherent particle, a genuine elementary particle that contains no emptiness and no energy-. This particle is absolutely indivisible. Theoretically, such a particle is immortal, possessing an infinite lifespan. Indeed, since it is perfectly indivisible, it cannot decay. It cannot undergo fission or change its color or flavor either. Even if this particle meets its antiparticle, they cannot annihilate each other because they are indivisible. Additionally, since this particle contains no energy, it is totally inert. It requires energy to spin, to move from A to B, or even to be combined with another similar particle for them to orbit each other.
Consequently, for the sake of clarity, I would define all composite particles and larger entities as “bodies”. When I use the term “particle”, I will almost always refer to this perfect, genuine, and extremely hypothetical elementary particle. Furthermore, it seems appropriate to define the particle as an object, just like energy. Matter (particle) and energy are objects or entities interacting within a container -our space-time continuum-.
Finally, I feel the need to make a brief comment regarding the alleged curvature of space-time. Clearly, in our theory, this hypothesis is not verified, as space and time cannot interact with the object (i.e., with the particle), and vice versa. The best I could imagine would be an interaction with a circular or spherical-shaped energy object. Another explanation could involve the existence of an element similar to “ether” that would be curved either by the particle and/or the energy. A final possibility could be that time-space is curved by nature. However, we will revisit this topic later.
After resolving the equation of the birth of our universe, we will describe the possible interactions between matter and energy, creating the Big Bang -if there was indeed a Big Bang-…

Energy Meets Matter

Logically, after having defined the four fundamental elements composing our universe, the next step is to observe their possible interaction, starting with the meeting or interaction of matter and energy.
Given that energy is dynamic and, by definition, unstable, I suppose that its instability led to the fission of matter, which then recombined to produce all objects in our current universe. In this scenario, I would simply imagine that matter and energy met or collided, creating the Big Bang. Consequently, both objects divided into infinitely smaller objects. These smaller matter bodies were set in motion by the smaller energy bodies. Motion, possibly endless fission, and orbiting were generated by energy and its remnants post-Big Bang.
Simultaneously, the Big Bang was also the birth of our perception of space and time. Note: the following explanation is unconventional. For this demonstration, we will digress slightly, so here we go.
We know we are composed of cells, which are considered “intelligent” entities. These cells are composed of particles. Logically, we can infer that these particles might also be intelligent. If not, it is obvious that these particles are positioned and organized intelligently -such as in DNA molecules- giving rise to cells and biological mechanisms like cell division and our immune system. Cell division and the immune system function independently of conscious human intelligence. Thus, our existence relies on such biological mechanisms. This suggests that intelligence has created life. We are, undoubtedly, the product of intelligent mechanisms -infinitely small, intelligent mechanisms-. Our ability to think is conditioned by our perception, which is conditioned by our biological constitution. Undeniably, our intelligence comes from the infinitely small, leading to the logical conclusion that the particles composing our bodies might be “intelligent” too. Intelligence has created life.
To conclude this digression, I argue that if we can perceive time and space, then logically, our particles also have this ability. Another example supporting this hypothesis is our biological thinking process. Indeed, our thoughts result from cells communicating via electrical impulses, i.e., negatively charged particles called electrons. Viewed this way, it is plausible to consider that particles might be intelligent and capable of communication. Particles are intelligent and conscious.
Now, back to our theoretical demonstration. Once the likely intelligence -and possibly consciousness- of particles is established, we can imagine that, through their movement and interactions with other bodies, each particle can perceive distance (the emptiness between particles) and speed (the time needed to cover this distance or to complete a spin). Immediately after the Big Bang fission/explosion, particles and bodies perceive the changes in their respective positions and movements compared to those of other particles and bodies. Theoretically, a particle alone in absolute emptiness, without any reference points -not even an energy object (thus in the “darkest void”)- might not be able to perceive its own movement -if it moves at all-.
Let us illustrate this point with the following theoretical example: A spinning particle will periodically perceive another particle each time it completes a turn on itself. Without this second reference particle, it might not even realize it is spinning. In this example, each cycle becomes the movement unit -how we earthlings measure one day, with one day being our reference unit-. The multiplication of this unit gives weeks, months, and years, while division gives hours, minutes, and seconds.
Another example to illustrate the birth of our perception of space and time: Imagine several particles aligned on a straight line at regular intervals with a moving particle that passes them by. In this example, each interval covered by the moving particle is a rectilinear cycle, and each rectilinear cycle is a measurement unit -for instance, one meter-. If the traveling particle is also spinning, it can measure the time taken to cover one or more intervals by combining the number of turns with the number of intervals. The measurement can be done in intervals per turn or turns per interval. This illustrates the birth of our perception of motion and speed, which consequently leads to our perception of space and time. In the presence of several traveling particles, each traveling particle can compare its speed with others, providing a better appreciation of its own movement and speed. After all, movement is the combination of space and time. To clarify, the combination and comparison with the movements and positions of other particles help each particle “develop and shape its own consciousness and perception” of space and time.
This is a simplistic and primitive attempt to describe the birth of our perception of space and time simultaneously -at least the technical aspect of it-. A further decisive factor in the birth of our general perception is consciousness, which will be described and defined later in this document. For us to perceive anything, we necessarily need to be conscious, at least of our own self and our existence -or perhaps the reverse, meaning that consciousness relies on our perception ability-?…


Our “Space-Time“ Continuum

In this essay, we have defined what seem to be the four fundamental components of the universe, followed by a brief description of the interaction between two of them -matter and energy- resulting in the birth of our perceptible universe or, at the very least, explaining its basic functioning. It seems logical to now explore the interaction between the other two elements: space and time.
I have mentioned the term “continuum” several times, referring to it as a container in which objects such as energy and matter interact to create our perceptible universe. Traditionally, our continuum is defined as four-dimensional, with time being the fourth dimension. This is precisely the point that I find troubling. Given the previous discussions in this essay, from a semantic perspective, it is not appropriate to consider time as a fourth dimension. The problem begins with the fact that time is a completely different element from space. As previously mentioned, time and space are two continua. Space is a static continuum, while time is a dynamic continuum.
When considered from this perspective, it becomes clear that our continuum is the fusion/reunion/combination of these two continua, in which case the most appropriate framework to describe our continuum is set theory. Two continua meet to create a new continuum. The new continuum inherits characteristics from its two “parent sets”. Space is multidimensional and contains an infinity of dimensions -not just three- much like a sphere. Space is a static continuum with infinite dimensions. Each dimension -thus space itself- tends toward infinity -tendency toward the infinitely big-. Time is a dynamic, one-dimensional continuum with three components. Time flows only in one direction, making it one-dimensional. The past no longer exists, and the future does not yet exist, hence the expression: not anymore = not yet = 0. Thus, time can be reduced to the present, which itself tends toward zero -tendency toward the infinitely small-. The present is the boundary between the past and the future, and this boundary tends not to exist. Where does the present start, and where does it end?
This train of thought leads to the “paradox of the present”: the present lasts much less than a billionth of a second but feels eternal because our consciousness is trapped in the one-dimensional present. Consequently, time is a dynamic, one-dimensional continuum that tends toward zero, a continuum approaching non-existence. Therefore, our continuum is the combination of a static continuum with infinite dimensions that tends toward infinity -there is no known boundary to the void- and a dynamic, one-dimensional continuum tending toward zero. Since our continuum inherits all characteristics from its parents, it is simultaneously static, dynamic, infinitely small, infinitely large, infinitely-dimensional, and one-dimensional. Our bodies occupy and evolve in an infinitely-dimensional space, while our consciousness evolves in a one-dimensional present time.
Furthermore, it is important to note that any description of our continuum originates from our brain and its perceptual abilities. It is, therefore, a subjective perception.
Let us attempt to describe a schematic representation of our continuum that would be more appropriate for our current theory. First, we need to move beyond the traditional 3D representation of space. This is useful for orientation purposes but not for appropriately describing our dynamic continuum. We must also keep in mind that we can only describe our continuum from our subjective point of view, the perspective of a particle or an observer progressing in this continuum. In our continuum, we can move in only one direction at a time. Each direction has its opposite, such as left/right or forward/backward. Between each direction and its opposite is the zero point, also known as HERE -where the observer stands-. For instance: Left+here+right, forward+here+backward, or up+here+down. There is an infinity of possible directions, all starting from the zero point -HERE=0- much like in a sphere.
This schematic description of the space continuum applies to the time continuum but with only one dimension because time flows only in one direction, progressing from the past to the future. Thus, its structure is: past+now+future, with NOW=0 -the present moment where the observer stands, or in other words, when the observer perceives-.
Thus, from the subjective vantage point of a particle or a human observer in our continuum, when considered as sets, space and time meet at their respective zero points, HERE+NOW. Each point -each particle- of the newly created set inherits all aspects of both sets. Each point progresses from the past to the future in all possible directions, but only in one spatial direction at a time. If all points of the newly created set -i.e., our continuum- move simultaneously in all possible directions, then the set expands in all directions. The possibility that our continuum expands does not mean that space and time expand with our universe or with our continuum. Indeed, our continuum may expand within time and space. In other words, it may take up increasingly larger portions of both its parent sets. Later in this essay, I will present further arguments demonstrating why it is extremely unlikely that space and time expand along with the universe.
Finally, it is useful to draw attention to the fact that a term already exists to aptly describe our continuum: movement. Indeed, movement is nothing more than the combination of space and time…

 

 

Time Travel

The universe as we know it is composed of particles set in motion by energy. Over time, these particles combine to form inert and living elements, creating the world we experience. From a strictly technical and logical perspective, life is a dynamic constellation of particles -like a movie-. Each moment can be compared to a single frame and all frames together constitute the film. If we freeze a past moment, like a photograph, each particle in the universe has followed a unique trajectory since the Big Bang to arrive at that precise moment and continues its journey afterward…
To return to that moment -traveling to the past-, we would need to recreate the exact constellation of all particles in the universe. This would require forcing every particle to retrace its trajectory in reverse. A single particle deviating from its path could change the course of events, creating a new timeline. This deviation whether local or universal, could have profound consequences due to the the “butterfly effect”. This seems to be the most logical and realistic principle of operation of time travel…
Consequently to this realistic principle, we realize that the calculation of the trajectory of all particles of the universe requires an unimaginable computational power. Even more challenging is the mechanical operation of forcing particles to follow their reverse trajectory. Logically, only a species or an entity born before the universe -or perhaps created it- could perform both actions. Even for such an entity, this would be a titanic effort.
Interestingly, reversing particle trajectories would not affect time itself as a continuum. Consider a car driving backward: time continues to move “forward” regardless of the car’s direction. Similarly, 
traveling to the past would imply a contraction of the universe. Indeed, since the universe is expanding, the reverse trajectory of particles necessarily implies the opposite movement which is a contraction…
Applying this principle to the constituents of our universe -matter and energy- reveals practical challenges. For instance, if a 30-year-old travels back to when they were 20, the particles in their 30-year-old body would not be the same as those in their 20-year-old body. These particles might have been scattered across the world a decade earlier -perhaps in another human, an animal, or anything else-. This raises two logical hypotheses:

1. Disintegration hypothesis: During time travel, the particles of the 30-year-old body might disperse to their original positions, leaving the traveler’s consciousness/soul/spirit “stuck in time” without a physical form. This scenario seems not to materially affect the timeline…

2. Disruption hypothesis: The particles might remain in the 30-year-old body, which could create a “vacuum” in the individual or organism or inert object where they were. This disruption may be imperceptible and immediately compensated with surrounding particles or it could lead to the death of the individual or organism that originally contained those particles. The missing particles could be gained from the immediate environment which would then search to compensate this loss in its own immediate environment and so forth -a chain reaction-. This disruptive event would either alter the timeline or create a new one, since it does not originally belong to it…

The same principle applies to energy particles previously mentioned in this essay, which I posit have similar characteristics to matter particles. Consequently, similar results with the same two hypotheses -disintegration or disruption- is to expect. Whether through matter or energy, time travel would likely create ripples in the timeline, with consequences ranging from subtle changes to the creation of entirely new realities…
Following our previous development, it may be worth addressing the retrocausality hypothesis according to which, future events may determine past events. This hypothesis posits that particles send information through time. This hypothesis aligns with our principle of time travel applied simultaneously to matter and energy -with information being what I define as energy-. This scenario would inevitably affect the course of events, creating a new timeline, which is directly insinuated in its very name “retrocausality”… 
The creation of new timelines leads to the concept of multiverse. A timeline is one version of reality. According to the multiverse theory, there may be an infinity of parallel universes or alternative realities. An alternative reality is formed when the exact same amount of energy and particles with the exact same universal laws evolved into different constellations or events. If the multiverse exists, it might be a tapestry of both naturally occurring and artificially created timelines…
Additionally, my readers have surely noticed that this -my- theory of time travel contradicts all other existing hypotheses. For instance, in the present framework, there is no apparent relation between time travel and the speed of light. I posit that traveling at the speed of light may affect our anatomy through gravitational effect. The impact on our anatomy leads simultaneously to alter our perception of time as well as our aging process. This could explain the alleged age difference when traveling at the speed of light and traveling back to Earth…
Other proposed methods of time travel, such as wormholes or “quantum portals”, could be natural phenomena such as fire or lightenings on Earth or tools created by an entity or species such the one previously mentioned. 
The hypothesis of a species or entity having created the universe unavoidably reminds the concept of “God”. If such a species existed before the Big Bang, it would likely be immaterial -perhaps resembling “pure intelligence” or even black holes-. Black holes may be intelligent and conscious entities -like particles-. Such powerful entities bringing entire galaxies to spin may also containing huge amount of information and be the perfect candidate to enable time travel. They may serve as cosmic archive, remembering each movement of each particle or gateways for time travel. Even if black holes are not per se intelligent, they might be the remnants of an intelligent action performed by an intelligent species, just like a hammer found on an archaeological site…
Furthermore and similarly to wormholes, all black holes of the universe may be connected to each other, giving access to the complete history of the whole universe…
Finally, time travel may be much simple than all the previous developments. Traveling time may not affect the timeline at all. Let us consider the past as the water trail of a boat, that would be the present. No disruption of the trail, for instance by a water skier, ever affects the boat…

 

 

Parallel Universe and Alternative Realities

In the Time Travel chapter, we discussed the creation of a new timeline. A possible consequence of such an event could be the creation of an alternative reality, also known as a parallel universe. Since this essay is a semantic exploration, we will begin with proper definitions of the terms involved, starting with “universe”. The universe is defined as the sum of all elements -matter and energy objects- perceivable or not, known or unknown.
“Parallel” means that two separate and different elements evolve simultaneously in the same direction without ever touching each other, much like two straight lines. According to this strict definition, “parallel universes” are completely distinct universes evolving separately and simultaneously without any interaction. Digression: quantum entanglement could provide evidence for the possible existence of such “parallel universes”. Should we adhere to this strict definition, then that is about as much as we can say on the topic.
However, the term “parallel universe” is also used to describe a range of similar possibilities, such as the “alternative realities” we previously mentioned. An alternative reality arises from the same universe evolving differently. As mentioned earlier, this can occur through time travel, resulting in a new timeline. This alternative reality could be slightly or completely different, with an infinite array of possibilities in between. In the former case, we might imagine a situation where almost everything is similar, except that the people we know might have different personalities and/or roles in life. This would be a significant change for each of us, but it pales in comparison to a scenario where Earth and humanity have never existed and will never exist.
On a strict theoretical and semantic level, there are not many different types of parallel universes. An alternative reality is one of them. The possibilities within this type are infinite, but it is still just one kind of potential parallel universe.
I would categorize another type of parallel universe as the “shared flat”: a parallel universe existing within our current universe. In this case, we could imagine that dark matter, dark energy, and other undetectable elements serve as a habitat for intelligent life forms that we cannot perceive or even conceive. I could envision that, like neutrinos, dark matter and dark energy could pass through us without any interaction, and so too could the intelligent life forms inhabiting this environment. They would exist alongside us, seemingly oblivious to our existence. In this scenario, we would share the universe with them, much like people share apartments in big cities. We might even imagine that they could detect us and know everything about us. They would observe us and put us to the test, studying our behavior as we do with animals. They might influence our thoughts and moods just to see what happens, doing so only occasionally when they are bored or want to have fun… our “flat mates.”
I can already hear some of my readers thinking, “Freaky!” Yes, perhaps. But let us return to the science at hand.
The next type of parallel universe that comes to mind is the “mirror universe”. I have heard theories suggesting that the Big Bang gave rise to two universes expanding in opposite directions. There are indeed several theories on this subject. One interesting hypothesis proposes that this mirror universe could be composed of antimatter. Some even argue that this antimatter universe would experience time in reverse. While this seems logical, the reasoning is flawed. A universe that experiences time in reverse would logically be contracting to return to its pre-Big Bang state. This raises the question: how can the Big Bang simultaneously create an expanding and a contracting universe? Moreover, antimatter is just matter with a different polarity. There is no logical reason to assume that antimatter would experience time in reverse -aside from its name-. Perhaps the term “antimatter” has unconsciously influenced those who developed this theory, leading to this illogical hypothesis. This example highlights the importance of the scientific community establishing closer interdisciplinary collaborations -such as physicists and mathematicians working with semanticists and other language and literature specialists-.
Anyway, a mirror image does everything we do; it imitates us and moves in the same direction. If we sit down, our mirror image won’t stand up. Consequently, there is no logical reason to believe a mirror universe would experience time differently.
The last type of parallel universe I can imagine is the “Russian dolls multiverse”. We can envision a world similar to ours but at an atomic scale, with civilizations existing for mere nanoseconds. Simultaneously, we might be such a civilization in the eyes of a species for which our solar systems are like atoms. Our brains could be universes in which billions of nanocivilizations exist, and our universe -with its billions of civilizations- could be the brain of a larger entity. An entity we might call God? Fortunately, this is just an essay, meaning I can write whatever I want. At least almost, as long as I do not offend women children, the elderly, people with disabilities, ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+++ individuals, police officers, politicians, CEOs, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and all other religions, labor unions, pharmaceutical companies, NASA, ESA, JAXA, and all existing space agencies, plumbers, carpenters, IT specialists, call center agents, military personnel, salespeople, animals, insects, fish, and fishermen, electric sockets, the sand, the sea, and my mother and father. This list is non-exhaustive. I almost forgot about aliens…


Rudimentary Thoughts on Gravity, Black Hole and Spin

Even though the scientific community tends to prohibit comparisons between atomic and astronomical levels, it is difficult to overlook the commonalities among their respective elements. Planets, stars, and black holes spin just as particles do. 
As previously mentioned, according to our theory, without energy, a genuine elementary particle can neither move nor spin. Earlier, we also posited that the object "energy" itself splits into smaller objects during its collision with the object "matter," resulting in the Big Bang. Consequently, we can easily imagine that almost every spinning force is a “remnant” of the original object energy, from black holes to particle spin. I envision every spinning particle or celestial body as being “trapped” within a spinning energy object or entity, a force with a circular shape -most likely, gravity-.
Given that gravity seems to be present at both atomic and astronomical levels, perhaps spin and gravity are two sides of the same coin: spin may be a parent force of gravity. 
It may even be relevant to extrapolate this hypothesis to blackholes as well. 
The following sections will describe more accurately the possible relationships between gravity, spin, and electromagnetism…


Fundamental Forces - Interactions

As a semantics specialist, I prefer the term “fundamental forces”. By definition, an interaction necessarily involves at least two elements or objects affecting each other reciprocally. Each fundamental force appears to be a single entity. Consequently, none of these forces can be an interaction on its own. They interact with particles and with each other, bringing elements into interaction, yet they are not interactions by themselves. Moreover, the official and current data on fundamental forces states the existence of four forces: electromagnetism, gravitation, weak, and strong forces.
However, here again, I suspect the definitions are not optimal. Indeed, when we carefully observe forces, we first notice that there are only two types of movement: rectilinear and circular. We also know that whenever there is movement, energy is involved. All other movements are combinations of these two types. It is also interesting to note that one particular combination of rectilinear and circular movement is the spiral or helicoidal movement, which in two dimensions becomes a wave form. This leads to the proposition that electromagnetic waves actually follow a helicoidal pattern, like the thread of a screw.
There is actually no static force or energy. This concept comes from our observation of objects “at rest”. However, rest does not truly exist. Objects at rest are composed of atoms with electrons orbiting nuclei at extremely high speed. Thus, what is considered “static” is actually undisturbed internal circular (gravitational) movement. Stable (non-radioactive and non-decaying) and non-moving objects give the impression of being at rest, which is not the case. Consequently, empirically, there are only two shapes of movement and two types of forces: rectilinear and circular.
We also observe that both rectilinear and circular forces either attract or repel each other. Opposite spins mesh together, and opposite polarities attract, while similar spins cancel each other out, and similar polarities repel. Spins as well as gravitational fields of celestial bodies function like gear wheels and normal wheels. If two -gear- wheels rotating in the same direction touch, their rotation stops because, paradoxically, at the contact point, they rotate in opposite directions.
This phenomenon has been empirically and experimentally observed countless times.
The final empirical observation I need to share is about the way energy seems to permeate matter, as if it were trapped in energy fields that set it in motion, whether electromagnetic or gravitational fields. Consider the solar system or a planet such as Saturn. It is difficult to overlook that its gravitational field extends beyond Saturn and affects its rings. It is as if Saturn were trapped in a gravitational field. This phenomenon is most visible with Saturn but seems to apply to all celestial bodies as well as at the subatomic level. Each nucleus is surrounded by a gravitational field affecting its electrons. When these “energy field-traps” meet either to attract and mesh or to repel and annihilate each other, fusion and fission -possibly other reactions such as ionization or displacement of electrons to another level- result from these interactions.
In my theory, the ability of energy to trap matter -particles- is an axiom. Thus, for instance, when two opposite gravitational fields -spins- with their respective particles trapped inside them meet to mesh, the particles will orbit each other. When two similar spins meet to annihilate each other, the particles are projected away from each other and drift in a helicoidal pattern -radiation- and may even spin slower on their axis due to the total or partial loss of their gravitational field.
As we can see, this theory is radically different from the traditional theory of relativity, quantum field mechanics, and even electromagnetism. Yet, it enables the explanation of practically all observed phenomena at both the subatomic and astronomical levels…
Finally, in my theory, the weak and strong forces are interpreted differently. Particles are trapped in gravitational and electric fields that exhibit different strengths -weak and strong-. In some cases, gravitational traps are strong enough to enclose particles with like charges that would normally repel each other. This implies that the force of the gravitational field or trap can be greater than that of the electric field or trap. This seems to be the case in neutron stars. Though these celestial bodies are essentially composed of neutrons, they also enclose protons and electrons…

 

 

Fundamental Forces: A New Relationship between Electricity, Magnetism and Gravity

Before starting this analysis, I want to share a semantic thought: perhaps electricity should be renamed conductivity. The term electricity has historical significance due to the circumstances and time when we discovered this force, but it seems inappropriate because all so-called “elementary particles” possess an electric charge not just electrons. We could logically hypothesize that the charge of a particle is a “conductive characteristic” meaning the ability to conduct the so-called electric force, hence our suggestion to rename electricity conductivity…
We previously redefined the concept of fundamental forces. In the present theory, I posit that gravity is a form of circular energy and that every circular and helicoidal movement is affected by gravity. Following this logic, electromagnetic (EM) waves may be the combination of a rectilinear force with gravity. We know that the electric force acts linearly, so I suggest that EM waves are actually a combination of the electric rectilinear force with gravitational circular force, resulting in a helicoidal movement. Magnetism would be the result of this combination. Interestingly, the magnetic force follows a helicoidal pattern around the wire conducting the electrical force.
It is important to differentiate the terms and elements force and field. We are presently taking the forces in consideration, while observing their action and “shape” -their movements-…

 

 

Spin and Charge

After redefining fundamental forces, it seems appropriate to introduce my thoughts on the spin and charge of particles. As previously posited, there are only two possible types of movement -and thus two types of forces and energies-: rectilinear and circular. These characteristics correspond to those of electric charge and spin. It is interesting that these characteristics are not typically considered fundamental forces, yet they may actually represent the sole and true fundamental forces.
The scientific community often differentiates between force and energy. As a semanticist, I consider this distinction irrelevant. I suggest that a force is a measurable form of energy; fundamentally, energy, force, and movement define the same dynamic phenomenon. Any movement requires the application of a force, and the existence of a force relies on an energy supply. This is axiomatic. As previously demonstrated, there is no “rest force” because true rest does not exist. Some objects may appear to be at rest, but they are simply in a state of stable cohesion that gives the impression to the naked eye that they are at rest. The particles composing these objects are in constant motion, meaning these objects contain dynamic energy or forces. Regardless of the scientific community's possible disagreement, I assert that energy, force, and movement are different terms for the same phenomenon. I concede that these terms may reflect different perspectives from which the phenomenon is observed. Whether we consider a ball resting on a table, a crane lifting a rock, a car in motion, or a planet orbiting a star, all these examples are manifestations of energy. Therefore, I reiterate that spin and charge are forms of energy.
The next step is to observe the possible interactions of these two forms of energy. As previously mentioned, one combination of rectilinear and circular energy results in helicoidal movement. Another plausible combination could lead to oscillation, precession, or vibration. Similar to Earth’s magnetic field, if the electric charge acts along a rectilinear axis (north-south), while the spin acts circularly but is not perfectly perpendicular, this could create precession or vibration. Each particle appears to have a magnetic moment characterized by its charge and spin. In ferromagnetic materials, the alignment of the magnetic moments of electrons affects the material's magnetic strength. This example tends to validate my theories regarding precession, oscillation, and vibration.
Furthermore, the very concept of magnetic moment, characterized by the charge and spin of a particle, supports my hypothesis that magnetism may result from the combination of electric charge and spin -essentially, from electricity and gravitation-. However, the concept of magnetic moment does not precisely equate with my notion of precession, oscillation, or vibration defined by what I call the “angular combination” of spin and charge. Under this framework, each particle would have its own vibrational frequency.
Random events, such as collisions, could trigger or alter the precession of a particle, causing it to oscillate and generate vibration. Additionally, interferences with this vibrational frequency could modify the behavior of the particle, ranging from fusion to fission through “resonance”. The vibrations generated by a particle may affect the energy level of an atom and could influence other particles, potentially creating a chain reaction. This may occur with electromagnetic waves at the appropriate frequency.
Having described the “vibration hypothesis”, which involves the interaction of spin and charge at the particle scale, it is pertinent to consider how the spin and charge of one particle interact with those of another. We know that opposite charges attract while identical charges repel. Thus, charge leads to the attraction or repulsion of particles -nothing new there-.
To describe the interaction of the spins of two particles, let us observe a similar phenomenon on a larger scale. At an astronomical scale, the existence of the Lagrange points demonstrates the interaction between the gravitational field of a planet and that of its star. Both gravitational fields may merge to form a larger -and possibly stronger- gravitational field. This merged gravitational field's shape may be counterintuitive, with “holes” (the Lagrange points) resulting from cancellation, while the remaining areas exhibit greater strength. This phenomenon may also apply at the subatomic level concerning spins. Allegedly, the strong force is the force that maintains quarks with like charges together. Since like charges repel each other, the force capable of bringing them together must be strong. The strong force could arise from the merger of at least two spins. The notion that two or more spins merging together become stronger and can thus enclose or trap particles with like charges aligns with our prior attempt to rationally integrate the strong force into our theory. Moreover, similar to an elastic band, the greater the tension, the stronger the force…
Finally, a note about gravitation: it is often said that gravitation is a weak force, until we seriously consider phenomena such as black holes. If my theory is accurate and the strong force indeed originates from spin, and thus gravitation, then it seems that the intensity of a force is not fixed. In our theory, the intensity of the rectilinear (electric) and circular (gravitational) forces depends on the specific circumstances…

 

 

Further Thoughts on Gravity, Magnetism, Electricity and Photons

Photons allegedly have no electric charge. If this is true and electromagnetic (EM) waves are composed of photons, how can EM waves create positive or negative electric fields that interact with charged particles?
According to my theory, I do not believe that photons transfer energy to other particles. Rather, they are themselves trapped in an energy field -both gravitational and electric- and their electro-gravitational field interacts with that of other particles, leading to fusion, fission, or ionization. It is also noteworthy that gamma photons interact differently than radio photons. If the differing interactions stem from the photons themselves, then it is likely that photons across the EM spectrum have different characteristics, and, therefore, they should travel at different speeds. However, we know this is not the case; all wavelengths of the spectrum travel at the speed of light. Even gravitational waves travel at light speed. Thus, I conclude that the action of EM waves lies elsewhere.
I posit that all particles are trapped in an electro-gravitational field -characterized by charge and spin- and these fields interact since charges attract and repel each other while spins (related to gravitation) also attract and cancel each other. As previously explained, in my theory, opposite spins mesh to form larger and stronger spins. When they mesh, the particles trapped within them appear to orbit each other, similar to stars, planets, and moons. If they repel or annihilate each other, the trapped particles are released and can be absorbed or scattered.
Furthermore, I propose that the helicoidal movement of EM waves interacts with particles like a screwdriver. If the screwdriver is too large or too small, it does not affect the targeted system or particles appropriately, or at all. Consequently, shorter frequencies may not necessarily imply higher energy levels. While Einstein's work suggests that anything affecting nuclei is considered high energy, in my theory, the size of the wave -better described as the helicoidal movement- is just as crucial as the frequency. For instance, a small size (diameter of the helicoidal phase) interacts with electrons, a medium size interacts with nuclei, and a larger size interacts with the atom. The frequency between two helicoidal shapes or waves also plays a role, akin to microwave heating. The frequency -the repetition speed of the helicoidal pattern- synchronizes the electromagnetic fields of the EM waves with those of the targeted system or particle. Thus, the width of the helicoidal movement, combined with the frequency of the successive helicoidal phases, could lead specifically targeted particles to vibrate, undergo fusion, fission, ionization, or transfer electrons to other energy levels.
Moreover, I suspect that gravitational waves are part of the EM spectrum. Since they have never been considered this way, we would need to modify the scale to integrate them into the spectrum. We could place them between zero and one, as there is an infinite variety of possible wavelengths and frequencies between these two points.
In traditional theories, gravitational waves are seen as distinct from EM waves. However, in my theory, EM waves are actually an electro-gravitational phenomenon that produces magnetism as a result. Gravitation sets electrically charged particles in motion, generating a magnetic field. The rectilinear movement of electrically charged particles, combined with the circular movement of gravitation, produces the helicoidal movement we detect and perceive as waves because our detection tools render this motion in two dimensions. Additionally, gravitational waves also travel at the speed of light, which implies that they, too, could be composed of photons. Although I acknowledge the unusual nature of this hypothesis, I am confident that my readers will recognize the rational logic it is based on.
I understand that modern science claims that gravitational waves create ripples in the fabric of space-time. In my theory, there are no ripples in space-time because both space and time are intangible, making any interaction impossible. Instead, I propose that gravitational waves modify Earth's orbit around the sun. Normally, this orbit is flat, but gravitational waves create ripples within it rather than in the fabric of space-time. Earth moves up and down like a leaf on the ripples of a pond. Thus, instead of maintaining a flat orbit, Earth's path becomes wavy. At this precise moment, rather than orbiting at a consistent distance from the sun, Earth moves up and down, following the ripples of its orbit, which increases the length of the orbit and consequently the time required to complete it. This observation explains why our instruments seem to measure a ripple in time, leading scientists to posit that gravitational waves affect the fabric of space-time. Simply put, gravitational waves affect our measurements of time since our measurement methods rely entirely on Earth's orbit around the sun, rather than on time itself. This aligns perfectly with my screwdriver hypothesis: these helicoidal movements correspond to the size of Earth's electro-gravitational energy field. Consequently, due to their appropriate size, they affect this field, which in turn affects our orbit and our measurement of time.
Finally, my theory that EM waves are an electro-gravitational phenomenon resulting in the creation of a magnetic field implies that photons are electrically charged, which contradicts commonly accepted knowledge. Here is my hypothesis: I posit that photons are akin to neutrons. They are composed of various -most likely two- sub-photonic electrically charged particles whose summed electrical values equal zero. This could explain the alternating value of the magnetic field. In one phase of the field, the photons are oriented in a position that exposes the negative component and creates a negative field, while in the other phase, the positive components are exposed, creating a positive field. The idea that electron oscillation changes the value of the field is not logical and appears to be a false conclusion. It is difficult to visualize how a stable electric field becomes alternating simply through vibration. While I understand the reasoning that leads to this conclusion, which involves field vibration or electron vibration, it is flawed. My explanation is undoubtedly more rational.
The photons themselves are not oscillating; rather, they are set in circular or helicoidal motion by the gravitational force. Consider a circle composed of photons all oriented in the same direction: negative on top and positive on the bottom. The photons in the top half will show their positive side facing inward, creating a positive field, while those in the bottom half will show their negative side facing inward, creating a negative field. Given that the circular movement is actually helicoidal, the charged particle in the center is alternately exposed to the negative and then the positive field. Furthermore, the hypothesis that photons are electrically charged aligns with my theory and explains how the gravitational force leads them to generate a magnetic field…

 

 

Mass, Density, Gravity and Inertia

In my youth, the mass of an object was defined as the amount of matter contained within it. In other words, mass is the number of particles in an object -essentially a “quantified” definition-. This could also be qualified as “absolute”, in contrast to “relative”. The scientific community distinguishes between rest mass and inertia. While I generally agree with this differentiation, I would like to clarify a couple of aspects.
If we consider mass as the quantity of particles or elements composing an object, then, regardless of the speed at which the object is propelled, the number of components it contains remains the same. However, the higher the speed, the greater the effect of the object on its environment -inertia-. Logically, if we consider that inertia is intrinsic to the particle or body, then it seems mass increases with speed. However, this formulation is suboptimal. Indeed, the amount of matter in an object or particle does not change with speed. Moreover, inertia is not solely a function of speed but also of mass. For the same speed, inertia increases with mass. Consequently, inertia is a function of the combination of speed and mass, and it increases with either or both of them. Thus, I believe this mathematical evidence is enough to demonstrate that inertia is not intrinsic to the object.
Consider, for instance, a child on a bicycle. Suppose the child needs help to start pedaling and propelling the bike. I apply a certain force to get it moving. Now, imagine the child is already in motion and needs to accelerate. If I apply the same force, the child and bike together will feel much lighter than if they were at rest. Paradoxically, the inertia of the moving child and bike is higher. Even more paradoxically, it is likely that this very inertia is why the ensemble feels easier to propel. It is exactly the same when pushing someone on a swing. If we push a person while their inertia is already swinging them away, they feel lighter. Consequently, I anticipate that the same holds true in space, without any friction. With a constant force, an object always feels lighter because it moves faster, precisely due to inertia. Empirically and experimentally, these experiences -common to all of us- challenge Einstein’s assumptions.
This inevitably leads to the proposition that, if my hypothesis is correct, it is theoretically possible to reach and exceed the speed of light, at least mathematically in my reference context. Of course, from a physical and engineering standpoint, a few practical conditions must be met. The example of massive objects such as galaxies traveling at relativistic speeds without propulsion tends to confirm my present hypothesis… 
Not directly related to the previous hypothesis, but potentially relevant for semantic purposes, we may need to differentiate rectilinear from circular inertia.
Additionally, I would like to present a hypothesis about gravity and the mass of photons. First, I posit the following axiom: whatever is affected by gravity necessarily has mass and density. We know that gravitational lensing curves light, which necessarily means that light is affected by gravity, implying that photons have mass. If photons have mass, it follows that they are matter, as mass is the absolute amount of particles in an object -the amount of matter composing any possible object or body-. Thus, in my theory, photons possess mass and density. Density is the amount of matter or number of particles in a given volume. Where there is mass, there is necessarily density. Density and mass are both measures of matter: mass is an absolute value, and density is a relative one. This aligns with my previous hypothesis that photons are composite particles, composed of sub-photonic electrically charged particles with a net charge of zero…
Finally, a deeper empirical observation of inertia reveals that it is observable in cases of friction or impact, such as when an object hits water or experiences air friction that causes resistance. For example, on Earth, cars encounter friction with the ground and air resistance. Additionally, the friction between components, such as wheel bearings, also contributes to speed reduction. Even gravity can act as a speed-reducing factor, especially in low Earth orbit (LEO), where friction is nearly nonexistent. Gravity serves as a fundamental force underlying all these factors; less gravity means reduced ground friction, lower air density, and consequently less resistance.
All elements that reduce speed constitute what is referred to as “resistance”. For a given  resistance, a higher speed and/or mass results in greater inertia and vice versa. However, without resistance, inertia remains a “potential” that is ineffective. Therefore, for a consistent speed/mass combination, nothing prevents permanent acceleration in the absence of resistance…

 

 

Mass and Higgs Boson

Hypothetically, the Higgs boson is the particle that determines the mass of other particles. Given the definitions of absolute mass and rectilinear/circular inertia, the question arises: which of these two phenomena is determined by the Higgs boson?
Logically, it should be rectilinear/circular inertia since absolute mass refers to the amount of sub-particles contained in a composite particle or body. There appears to be no empirical or logical reason why the Higgs boson would determine the number of elements composing any particle. Consequently, the immediate and logical question is: how can the Higgs boson determine the rectilinear/circular inertia of particles? The only logical possibility would be if the Higgs field offers a “resistance” to particles in motion, and this resistance would be proportional to the absolute mass and density of the particles. 
However, my first problem with this hypothesis is that, for it to be possible, considering the extremely short lifespan of the Higgs boson, these particles would need to be extraordinarily abundant. Given the time it took to find and measure the existence of just one Higgs boson, this seems unlikely. If it were as abundant as required, we should have detected it much earlier. Moreover, if this particle indeed defined the weight of other particles, we would necessarily have to completely redefine gravity and its function, which is based on countless experiments and measurements conducted over centuries…
Consequently, the hypothesis that the Higgs field determines mass may stem from a flawed and illogical visualization. I anticipate that such a claim will be interpreted as provocative, which is not my intention. However, my entire theory relies on the premise that the scientific community may have misinterpreted measurements and experiments conducted over decades, which is obviously not easy to acknowledge. Nonetheless, the hypotheses presented in this essay remain highly consistent.
In my theory, particles are not force carriers, whether they are photons or Higgs bosons. On the contrary, they are trapped and surrounded by forces that carry them. These forces interact with each other, resulting in the fusion, fission, or ionization of particles. In the scope of these operations -especially when spins annihilate each other-, particles are released, then either absorbed or scattered…

 

 

EM Waves - Thoughts About Destructive Interferences

Light is the visible part of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum, which logically implies that space is filled with EM waves. All celestial bodies radiate light waves, as well as other forms of radiation that span the entire spectrum.
This creates considerable amounts of interference, which leads me to wonder what happens concretely during this phenomenon. Where does the energy go? Do photons disappear, or are they scattered or absorbed? My concern primarily focuses on destructive interference.
Within the framework of the present theory, the electro-gravitational fields carrying photons collide instead of merging. Consequently, they are either destroyed or fragmented, which allows the photons to be released and possibly decomposed. If our theory is correct, then photons are composite particles. Like all composite particles, the electro-gravitational fields in which they are trapped also keep their components together. Any alteration of their energy field could lead either to the release of the actual particle or to its decomposition.
At this stage of our reasoning, it seems important to clarify the following about the appearance and disappearance of matter. On a purely theoretical level, either particles appear out of nothing and disappear into nothing, or they decompose infinitely into smaller components with increasingly shorter lifespans. Given that we have never observed anything emerging from absolute nothingness, this theory leans toward the axiom of infinite decomposition. Conversely, in specific random circumstances, undetectable small particles with extremely short lifespans may spontaneously fuse and randomly form larger bodies with longer lifespans that we can detect. It may give the impression that these particles have come out of nothing, but this is not the case.
Consequently, in the context of destructive interference of visible light, what appears to us as shade does not necessarily mean that energy and photons disappear. We only know with certainty that they no longer interact with our visual senses.
Furthermore, if we are able to reproduce destructive light interferences, it might be possible to apply the same principle to other frequencies within the spectrum. This could be particularly useful as a means of shielding against cosmic rays. However, I suspect that achieving this may not be easy and may not be the most efficient method to pursue.
At the present stage of this theory, I have no further relevant thoughts to share, except for the following: if photons are particles, then EM waves can be considered a form of matter -specifically, the fifth state of matter-…

 

 

Electron Cloud

Critics of the present theory may argue that it is false because electrons do not orbit around nuclei; rather, they exist in the form of clouds, and their exact position is statistical. In response, I would first challenge them to explain electricity and electric current using the cloud theory. Then, I would remind them that electrons and other subatomic particles move at relativistic speeds. At the speed of light, an object completes seven orbits of Earth at the equator. Viewed from this perspective, when extrapolating this fact to the subatomic level and given the size of a nucleus compared to that of Earth, it becomes realistic to conceive that at this level, an electron orbiting at relativistic speed would give the impression of being simultaneously at all possible positions on an orbit around the nucleus…

 

 

Elementary Particle

As previously mentioned a “genuine” elementary particle is not fissionable, cannot decay and cannot be disintegrated, not even by its antiparticle. It is possible that it has no antiparticle. A genuine elementary particle cannot change its color or flavor either. Indeed, to do so, it would necessarily need to change its composition. A change in composition involves a change in components. A change in components can be a loss, a gain, or an exchange of components. Any particle displaying at least one of these three behaviors is necessarily a composite particle. Consequently, a genuine elementary particle is only a theoretical concept since all known particles either have a short lifespan and decay very quickly, can be disintegrated by their antiparticle, or can change color/flavor. 
According to our theory, matter does not simply disappear into nothing, leaving only one alternative: disintegration into smaller components -endless disintegration-? Thus, all known particles disintegrate or decay into smaller components and are therefore all composite particles…
Last but not least, since a genuine elementary particle is not fissionable, it is not possible to extract energy from it. Composite particles do not disintegrate into energy; instead, their components are bound by forces that constitute a form of energy. When they disintegrate into smaller components, the binding energy is released, which can often trigger a chain reaction -at least according to the logic of the current theory-…

 

 

Matter, Antimatter, Symmetry, Asymmetry

It is alleged that matter and antimatter are created simultaneously. Experimentally, they systematically annihilate each other as soon as they come into contact. The Big Bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter, which should have immediately annihilated each other; yet, here we are. The obvious existence of matter alongside the apparent absence of antimatter represents an asymmetrical state. Why is this asymmetry present? More importantly, how did the universe arrive at this state?
Before attempting to find answers to this asymmetry, as a semantics specialist, it is essential to define antimatter. Antiparticles share the same characteristics as particles, except that they possess opposite charges. They have the same size, mass, and spin, but opposite charges. Given the developments in current theories, similar spins may lead to annihilation, which could explain why matter and antimatter destroy each other.
Furthermore, I am compelled to ask how it is that matter and antimatter are systematically produced as pairs. The fact that no separate production mode has ever been observed does not mean that it is impossible. I anticipate the argument asserting that mathematical calculations validate this hypothesis. In response, I would offer the following analogy: I can claim to have seen one pink elephant climbing a tree. Then I can add that I saw a second pink elephant in the same tree. Logically, I conclude that I saw two pink elephants climbing a tree. While both grammatically and mathematically correct, this assertion does not necessarily make it true or even probable. The mathematical aspect does not validate the claim. However, I may have expressed myself poorly, and what I called pink elephants could actually have been the pink bottoms of apes climbing the tree. In this case, the assertion becomes credible and conceivable. The art of definition is the core competency of a semantics specialist.
That said, here is a hypothesis explaining the asymmetrical state: “geographical asymmetry”. Particles annihilate each other only when they encounter their exact antiparticle. Perhaps during the Big Bang, a minuscule fraction of particles paired with other particles and antiparticles -rather than their exact antiparticles- protected them from destruction and led to the formation of our universe. For instance, a down quark might have been randomly paired with an anti-up quark or an up quark, preventing its annihilation. This hypothesis is termed geographical because, in this case, the asymmetry arises not from numbers but from a random geographical factor -namely, the position and distribution of the involved particles-. However, within the framework of this hypothesis, one must ask: what happened to the corresponding antiparticles that were not annihilated? Logically, they should also have formed their own universe. Thus, this hypothesis brings us back to square one.
Nonetheless, particle accelerators appear to create elements where an antiparticle is trapped with other particles that do not include its exact counterpart. Perhaps the universe functions in a manner similar to what accelerator experiments demonstrate.
Methodologically, we need to reconsider the definitions to uncover any overlooked aspects. We have previously defined matter and antimatter but not annihilation. Was the annihilation of both particles truly observed? Or was it actually a transformation? We posit that nothing comes from nothing and vice versa -that matter cannot simply disappear-. A particle disintegrates into smaller objects, but it cannot entirely vanish and release energy. Thus, when particles and antiparticles meet, they likely disintegrate into smaller constituents that may not be detectable, but they do not completely vanish or annihilate each other. They probably become something else. The smaller particles into which they disintegrate could combine in a different and more coherent way, resulting in the formation of new, more stable particles and elements that later give rise to our universe.
For instance, I can imagine that when an electron and a positron meet, they disintegrate into smaller, shorter-lived particles. Then, randomly, these smaller particles might combine to create larger elements with longer lifespans, eventually leading to the existence of our universe or the conditions for a future Big Bang. More realistically, we could envision particles-antiparticle pairs annihilate each other and immediately decay into smaller particles. These decaying particles amass to form an original “soup” with the appropriate pressure conditions. Simultaneously -or immediately afterward- other matter-antimatter pairs continue to annihilate each other, randomly generating massive amounts of energy that would ignite the soup. This process could be the Big Bang inflation. Under this energy’s influence, these smaller particles would then start forming larger, heavier, and more stable elements. This hypothesis is rendered even more plausible since we know that certain particles, such as electrons and positrons, do not disintegrate into pairs of matter-antimatter. Instead, their disintegration releases energy and creates smaller particles like neutrinos, photons, and quarks, which are standard matter particles. Matter and antimatter do not disintegrate symmetrically.
Once again, a more accurate definition of terms enables us to conceive a plausible way in which matter and antimatter could yield only matter or only antimatter despite reciprocal annihilation or cancellation. Clearly, the term “annihilation” complicates the thought process, as if it subconsciously misleads us. After redefining the terms and substituting “annihilation” with “transformation,” a rational explanation for the asymmetry emerged spontaneously. Our explanation might be incorrect, but it is undoubtedly rational, logical, plausible, and conceivable.
I would like to provide further comments on the definition of antimatter. Strictly semantically considered, the term antimatter defines or describes anything that is not matter. Therefore, the logical semantic “opposite” of matter is emptiness. It follows that even the term antimatter is not appropriately chosen. What we refer to as antimatter is, in fact, normal matter with an opposite charge. We also know that opposite charges attract each other and tend to form larger particles rather than result in annihilation. Hence, my hypothesis that annihilation is caused by similar spins, as previously explained. I can envision a scenario where opposite charges attract each other, but similar spins lead to mutual destruction, releasing the components of the composite particles -neutrinos, photons, and quarks-.
Finally, I would like to propose another hypothesis. Geometrically considered, if two particles have the same spin, flipping one of them by 180 degrees would result in both particles having opposite spins. In such a case, according to current theory, it may be possible to merge and fuse them. Could positrons and electrons potentially be fused through such a “spin merger” with the right “screwdriver”? If so, this could open vast possibilities for creating new particles -“exotic matter”-. According to our definition of elementary particles, positrons and electrons are composite particles. Perhaps their components are oriented in such a way that opposite charges attract while like spins lead to mutual destruction. Possibly, the right combination of electromagnetic waves -our metaphorical “screwdriver”- could enable their reorientation for meshing-…

 

 

Semantic Comments

Among the four fundamental elements -time, space, energy, and matter- two are dynamic and the other two are static. Time and energy are dynamic elements, whereas matter and space are static. When combining these four elements, it is evident that two static elements cannot give rise to one or more dynamic elements, and vice versa. This limitation restricts the number of possible combinations.
Furthermore, our theory also explains the emergence of our perception of time and space. At this point in the essay, it is important to clarify that I axiomatically posit that time and space, as well as matter and energy, have always existed; we cannot definitively explain their origins.
If the Big Bang truly occurred, it must have happened somewhere -somewhere in space and at a certain point in time-. Thus, space and time must necessarily have existed prior to the Big Bang. Given that we have also posited that matter and energy do not originate from nothing, we must assume that they were always present, surely even before the Big Bang.
Ultimately, whether or not there was a Big Bang, we know with the utmost certainty that our perception of the universe relies on the dynamic interaction between matter and energy. With that in mind, let us summarize the possible combinations and formulate them mathematically.
The combination of time and energy as the source of the Big Bang or as the principle underlying the functioning of the universe is likely not feasible. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of any rational action resulting from such a combination; therefore, we conclude that time & energy = 0.
The combination of time and matter yields little productivity either; thus, time & matter = 0.
The combination of time and space is the most frequently cited, yet this pairing does not explain how our perceptible universe came into existence. Therefore, we also conclude that time & space = 0.
The combination of space and energy similarly fails to explain the birth of our perceptible universe. From this combination, it is extremely challenging to establish any relationship with time and matter; hence, space & energy = 0.
The combination of space and matter faces the same limitation as the combination of space and energy; thus, space & matter = 0.
Logically speaking, any combination that includes time or space cannot produce any results, as time and space are continua, and any interaction with a continuum is impossible.
The final combination to consider is matter and energy. As we have described throughout this document, this combination is the only one that logically and conceivably explains the potential birth of our universe and its functioning. Therefore, matter & energy = our perceptible universe.
This reflection leads me to make the following observation: a static phenomenon and a dynamic phenomenon are clearly two different elements. Mathematical symbols such as +, -, ×, and ÷ represent operations, which are inherently dynamic, as they describe transformations or actions. In contrast, symbols such as =, ≠, >, or ≤ denote a state, indicating a static characteristic or identity. Consequently, strictly logically speaking, an operation, being a dynamic phenomenon by definition, cannot be “equal” to a static phenomenon. In other words, 1 + 1 cannot equal 2. Instead, 1 + 1 results in 2, but 1 + 1 ≠ 2.
To illustrate this point, consider the following example: It is Christmas, and a father, who has a habit of arriving late for holiday shopping, rushes into a store at the last moment to buy a Christmas tree. Fortunately, there is one last tree available, and he feels relieved, avoiding an argument with his wife. A couple of minutes later, another late father enters, returning a tree he bought earlier because his wife had already purchased one. The first father sees the second tree being returned to the shop. Initially, he saw one tree; then, after witnessing the return, he observes two trees. Had he arrived five minutes later, he would have seen two trees without knowing what had transpired. Clearly, these are two distinct events. In the first event, he witnesses the return of the second tree, while in the second, he simply sees two trees waiting for him. The first event is represented by 1 + 1, with the “+” sign describing the operation of returning the second tree. The second event is represented by “2”, a fixed and static result where two trees stand before him. He sees two trees, and that is that.
In life, as in physics, whether on an astronomical scale or at the subatomic level, for a second element to appear in any experiment or occurrence, something must necessarily happen -an operation (a “+”) must take place-. Therefore, as incredible as it might sound, it has been demonstrated that 1 + 1 ≠ 2; rather, 1 + 1 = 1 + 1 and 2 = 2…
Mathematics is a language, and the function of any language is to describe life. In life, we can observe different types of operations: addition (collection), combination, fusion, fission, mixing, bouncing, among others. In my humble opinion as a semanticist, mathematics does not optimally describe some of these operations due to weaknesses in definitions. This is particularly evident when differentiating between addition and combination. 
Let us consider a simpler example: kilometers per hour. In this case, a spatial unit is combined with a time unit. Spatial units can also be added together, resulting in a longer distance: for instance, 2km + 2km = 4km. However, we can also combine spatial units to yield a surface area or volume. This is where the problem becomes apparent. The symbol for a surface unit is “²”; yet, mathematically, 2² = 2 × 2 = 2 + 2, and 3³ = 3 × 3 × 3 = 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3. When considered mathematically, “²” or “³” serve as shorthand for addition. However, the same symbols are employed to describe a combination. Indeed, addition necessitates that kilometers are summed to create a longer distance. But “²” and “³” indicate that kilometers or meters are combined to obtain either a surface or a volume, which constitutes a fundamentally different operation from addition. This represents a nonsensical aspect of mathematical language.
In summary, when we write 2² = 2 × 2 = 2 + 2, it is analogous to claiming that one square (surface) equals a straight line, which is obviously false. However, if we write 2m² = 2m × 2m, note that 2m² ≠ 2m + 2m. Here, everything aligns. At least, it almost does. We still encounter the issue of the “2” being used in two different contexts with two different meanings.
My final thought on this topic is that for an operation to be considered possible, it is essential that the operation is realistic and/or conceivable and visualizable. The best example is reflected in our earlier comments regarding E=mc², where km²/s² is impossible to visualize concretely and realistically. In other words, it is meaningless, leading us to the conclusion that c² can only be expressed in km/s, and that only the algebraic value should be squared.
Semantics and mathematics... However, just as “pagans” must honor their work, it might be necessary for mathematicians and physicists to pay respect to the expertise of linguists and semanticists -those whose core competency lies in defining terms-. Mathematicians and physicists do not define terms as effectively as semanticists do…

 

 

E = mc2 - Semantic Approach

From a semantic perspective, anything that cannot be visualized or even schematically conceptualized is meaningless. For a sentence or formula to be meaningful, it must be possible to concretely visualize or conceptualize the phenomenon, object, or operation described. Our previous example of pink elephants climbing a tree illustrated how both a sentence and a calculation can be correct while describing something false, impossible, or unrealistic. Similarly, if c² is measured in km²/s², how can we realistically visualize and conceptualize s²?
The term km/s/s (kilometers per second per second) represents a variation in speed per second; it is the acceleration. In this context, speed (km/s) combines with time (s), leading to acceleration or deceleration -essentially a variation in speed-. Moreover, km/s, as a measure of speed, is a complete and integral entity. In the physical world, it is impossible to separate the temporal characteristics from the spatial characteristics of a moving object. However, conventionally, it is possible to simplify km/s/s to km/s², which is misleading. If mathematical language is to accurately describe real physical phenomena, km/s should be viewed as a single entity. This means that the “s” in km/s cannot be linked to the “s” in km/s/s, and thus the formula should not be simplified to km/s².
Additionally, when considered mathematically, km²/s² = km × km/s × s. This is clearly not the same as km/s/s. In km²/s², distance units multiply with distance units and combine with time units that are also multiplied by themselves. It is also crucial to note that s/s ≠ s × s. “Second per second” is not the same as “second multiplied by second”. “Second per second” represents a combination, whereas “second multiplied by second” is an additive variation. Combining and adding are two very different physical operations. We know that km × km = surface area, but what does s × s represent? Is it a “time surface”? How can we concretely visualize the operation “s × s”?
In any case, in the physical world, km²/s/s ≠ km²/s². It is possible to visualize and conceptualize km/s/s (acceleration), but it is impossible to visualize and conceptualize km²/s² or even km²/s/s. How can we visualize an operation that combines an area per second per second? A distance can be covered in a given amount of time (km/s), but can an object cover an area in a given amount of time? If we cannot conceptualize or visualize how an area can be covered over time, we cannot comprehend any variation of this phenomenon. In summary, if km²/s is inconceivable, it necessarily indicates that it is an unrealistic operation in the physical world, which also renders km²/s/s inconceivable and impossible.
The issue is similar with km²/s². It is not possible to visualize any concrete physical operation corresponding to this mathematical formula. Thus, since km²/s² is impossible to conceptualize, the only meaningful expression for c² is in km/s. Only the algebraic value can be squared for this equation to have significance.
Moreover, because it is intuitive to visualize a relationship between energy and movement, it becomes easier to conceptualize the relationship between mass (matter), energy, time, and space (speed). Ultimately, this formula describes the interactions among the four fundamental elements outlined at the beginning of this essay.
When visually and physically considered, it is clear that a certain amount of energy is needed to move a mass at a specified speed. Although this interpretation may not align with Einstein's original intent, it represents the most rational way to understand this formula.
However, since c² appears to be used strictly as an algebraic value, it seems irrelevant whether c² is expressed in km²/s² or km/s. The crux of the matter is that the measurement units are the core components of any equation. Indeed, since mathematics serves as a language, it must describe the observable interactions between energy, mass, time, and space (speed). Therefore, if we disregard the measurement units, there is nothing left to observe. Considering the elements represented by the units of measure, the only meaningful concrete visualization is that of propulsion -a mass in motion-. More generally, on a strictly theoretical level, the only two operations applicable to a particle or body in absolute emptiness are motion and fission. A particle or body can either be set in motion or undergo fission; no other operation seems conceivable.
As we previously established, the motion of a particle results from the combination of its mass and the speed or intensity of the force applied to it. However, in the case of fission, how can we concretely visualize the involvement of speed? In absolute emptiness, it is impossible to rationally imagine any relationship between speed and the fission of a particle or body. The situation becomes even more complex when we consider that fission necessarily requires another element or tool -likely another particle- since fission can only result from a collision. Thus, strictly logically speaking, in perfect absolute emptiness, it is not even possible to fission a single particle or body. Consequently, from a strictly semantic and logical perspective, this formula can only describe the interaction between mass and speed that results in an amount of energy -as if this energy were the necessary amount to propel a mass at the square of the speed of light-.
However, we know that this is not what Einstein intended. I understand that c² is used as a conversion factor. Nevertheless, I humbly question the underlying logic of using this constant. Technically, based on the definitions in the present theory, energy always results in motion or force that can be measured in newtons (N) or kilograms (kg). The need for a conversion factor seems superficial.
Regardless of the complexity of his theory, it appears that Einstein arbitrarily decided to measure this amount of energy using c² as a constant. Mathematically considered, any constant can replace c². The idea that it is relevant because c is a fundamental element of the fabric of space-time is abstract and not necessarily meaningful. There is no visible and logical relationship between the fabric of space-time and the amount of energy contained in a particle. After all, our current theory fundamentally challenges relativity and many other concepts. I need to clarify that this is not my intent; when I began writing on this topic, I had no idea I was inadvertently “attacking” Einstein. It simply unfolded this way.
Nonetheless, if we accept our perspective, upon rearranging the equation, we arrive at E/m = c². Written this way, this formula describes the amount of energy required to propel a given mass at the speed c². At such a speed, interstellar travel becomes conceivable -akin to commuting between a city center and its suburbs-. It would take approximately 420 seconds to travel to Proxima Centauri. With nuclear propulsion, we would need between 1.2 and 1.5 grams of nuclear material to propel a one-ton object at c². Even if our interpretation and understanding of this formula are flawed, it remains intriguing to think outside conventional boundaries. After all, who knows? Perhaps one day we will realize that our current calculations and interpretations of this formula are not as misguided as they may seem…

 

 

Lagrange Points

L1 makes sense to me.
L2 is acceptable -still to my understanding-.
L3 is problematic. How can Earth's gravity interfere with the Sun's gravity at such a remote location, perfectly opposite and symmetrical to the Sun? Please explain that to me!
L4 and L5 leave me speechless.
I grew up under the conventional interpretation of Earth's gravity, so from a standard understanding, the Lagrange points are dramatically problematic. Perhaps relevant experiments in space might demonstrate that this characteristic of gravitational interactions is actually “normal.”
However, I have some possible explanations for L3, which might also apply to L4 and L5.
Hypothesis 1 - Time-Delayed Gravitation: The gravitational effect of Earth may leave a trace or footprint. If this is the case, it would logically imply that Earth's orbit contains a great number of Lagrange points -perhaps infinitely many-. If Earth’s gravitational field is effective at L3, then why wouldn’t it be effective all around its orbit? But that’s not the case.
Hypothesis 2 - Non-Intuitive Shape of Intertwined Gravitational Fields: When the gravitational fields of various celestial bodies merge to form a star system, the new combined gravitational field may take on a non-circular or non-spherical shape with “holes” where gravity is negligible -these are the Lagrange points-.
Hypothesis 3 - Interfering Gravitational Effects of Other Bodies: L3, L4, and L5 may be explained by the gravitational interactions of other planetary bodies within our solar system. Additionally, we know that all planets in our solar system orbit within the same ecliptic plane, which could influence the Lagrange points of all planets.
Hypothesis 4 - Possible Measurement Error: We may have misestimated the gravitational force of Earth compared to that of the Sun. Consequently, Earth's gravitational pull could be stronger than traditionally estimated. It is also known that the gravitational influence of all planets tends to “bulge” the Sun, indicating that their gravitational effects are not negligible.
Hypothesis 5 - A Combination of Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, and 4: The combined effects of all these hypotheses could also explain L3, L4, and L5.
Furthermore, L3 is aligned with the Sun and Earth. Since Earth rotates around the Sun, this implies that L3 is also rotating with Earth, as are all other Lagrange points. However, I understand that L3 is “dynamic” or “mobile,” while L4 and L5 are not. This understanding suggests that Earth periodically orbits through L4 and L5. If this is true, why doesn’t this affect its rotational speed?
I have further thoughts on our favorite gravitational anomalies: we know L3 is symmetrically located relative to Earth. If this is true, can we not at least conceive the existence of L6 and L7, located symmetrically opposite L4 and L5? If Earth can exert its gravitational influence at the most distant point in its orbit, then why not at L6 and L7?
These reflections lead to further questions: What happens to the Lagrange points when all the planets are aligned? Are they affected at all? Are they displaced, or is their size modified in any way?
Another question: Are there Lagrange points at the atomic level? If gravity indeed plays a role at the subatomic level, we should expect the existence of subatomic Lagrange points…
In any case, it is interesting to note that gravitational interferences cancel each other rather than repel. The same is true for EM waves. Indeed, if EM waves were purely of electric and magnetic nature, waves with similar polarity should repel rather than cancel each other. This aspect strongly tends to confirm my present hypothesis regarding the electro-gravitational nature of EM waves, with magnetism as a byproduct of moving electric charges…

 

 

Expansion of the universe

If two galaxies are traveling at 2/3rd he speed of light in opposite directions (180° from each other), the total “spreading speed” would be 4/3 of the speed of light, which is faster than the speed of light. However, light still travels faster than either of these galaxies.
Let’s say that one galaxy is moving to the right and the other to the left. Once the left galaxy emits light in the right direction, it may take some time for this light to catch up and reach the galaxy traveling to the right, but it should eventually happen since light travels faster than this galaxy. The light coming from the left is “behind” the galaxy moving to the right, but it is faster. The fact that this light is emitted by a galaxy moving “backwards” does not slow it down -at least, not to my knowledge-. The only reason it would not reach and catch up to the galaxy traveling in the same direction would be if it were slowed down by opaque obstacles…
Furthermore, it is often alleged that galaxies do not move away from each other, but rather that the space between them expands like a balloon. A very simple example disproving this hypothesis is the Andromeda Galaxy and the Milky Way, which are on a collision course. They obviously do not follow an expansion pattern similar to that of a balloon. Moreover, as explained in the following analysis, space is intangible. It cannot be bent and does not expand either. At least according to my theory and in conformity with the axioms I have posited, it is not the galaxies themselves but rather the “fluid” (ether) between them that behaves this way, but definitely not space...

 

 

Curvature of Space-Time

I initially expressed my disagreement with this theory, which served as the starting point for this document. Our previous discussions have already provided multiple arguments and examples, leading me to conclude that if anything is bent, it is more likely a fluid or ether that carries the galaxies, rather than the space-time continuum itself. Thus, if a spherical particle or body bends anything at all, it is likely the “ether,” but very unlikely the continuum.
We have also observed that celestial bodies are shaped spherically by a force -most likely gravity- which implies that they are the ones being curved, rather than the opposite.
The existence of rings around planets and even planets orbiting stars provides further empirical evidence that planets and stars are “trapped” in circular or spherical forces that extend beyond their physical bodies…

 

 

Hypothetical Question about the End of the Solar System

Supposedly, at the end of its life, the sun will expand to become a red giant and may engulf the inner planets. We also know for instance that planet X affects the orbit of other bodies of the solar system. Similarly and logically, all planets affect each other’s orbits. Furthermore, and also similarly, and even more importantly, any alteration of the sun’s size -and gravitational pull?- will also affect the planets’ orbits. 
Consequently, my question is: is it possible that the gravitational force between the sun and its planets expands with the sun, potentially pushing the planets outward instead of engulfing them? Alternatively, within the framework of my theory, the meshed gravitational field of the sun and the inner planets could be disrupted. 
Finally, a third scenario could be a combination of the two previous ones. The gravitational field of the sun could expand until a certain level, after which it would be disrupted, releasing and scattering the planets to become rogue…
However, even in the context of the first scenario -the proportional expansion of the gravitational field-, I can imagine that the heat and radiation from the sun might annihilate all currently known life forms. Unless, of course, life as we know it evolves as the sun expands, adapting to the new conditions and becoming a form of life that we cannot yet imagine…

 

 

Planet Spin

Why would a planet spin vertically like Uranus or in a retrograde pattern like Venus?
My theory does not exclude these behaviors; in fact, it might even provide an explanation. My first intuitive guess was the collision hypothesis.
However, after analyzing more available data, I arrived at a slightly different conclusion.
 I considered orbital behaviors, such as the gravitational pull of Jupiter disrupting the trajectory of objects on collision courses with Earth and deviating them, or the influence of Planet X affecting the orbits of other celestial bodies.
Logically, I concluded that any similar gravitational event could have sufficed to disrupt or influence the gravitational fields of Venus and Uranus, as well as their gravitational relationship with the Sun and their axes of tilt. It may not have been a direct collision.
If we tilt the rotation axis of a planet by 180° in an east-west direction, it will appear to spin in the opposite direction -like Venus-.
 If we tilt its rotation axis by 90° in a north-south direction, it will appear to spin vertically -like Uranus-.
I also suppose that such events may have statistically occurred during the chaotic and unstable formation of a solar system -when entropy was higher-.
My theory posits that gravity is pure circular energy -the very energy or force that shapes all bodies into spheres-. In this context, it is realistic to imagine that a gravitational field, meeting a gas nebula, could have led to the formation of our solar system. It’s also possible that this gravitational field was not uniform and may have been fragmented.
Given that each planet has its own gravitational field, the fragmented gravitational field hypothesis is essentially a near certainty. Unconventional fragments of the global gravitational field, or “foreign” gravitational fields crossing the solar system’s own field, could have caused the tilting of these planets.
Here’s an attempt to describe this mechanism more precisely:
In my theory, we can visualize gravitational fields traveling through the spatial void, colliding randomly with matter or with each other -or both-. As explained earlier, when these fields collide, they can either mesh perfectly to form a larger field or repel each other. In the case of repulsion, they can alter each other’s direction and orientation, leading to the tilt of a planet’s axis.
Furthermore, this phenomenon might also support my theory regarding the counterintuitive gravitational interactions between the Sun and planets.
In my view, phenomena like the Lagrange points suggest that the gravitational relationship between the Sun and planets does not follow a simple, symmetrical pattern.
Finally, similar to my questions about Lagrange points at the subatomic level -are there particles spinning perpendicularly to their orbits or in a retrograde fashion?- another interesting question is: given their unconventional rotations, do Venus and Uranus have standard Lagrange points?…

 

 

Moon Rocks

Moon rocks are allegedly older than Earth's, although both celestial bodies were formed simultaneously.
My hypothesis is that this is due to the faster cooling of the Moon, leading to the formation of rocks earlier. This would also explain why its outer layer rocks are older than the inner rocks.
In comparison, Earth's interior material is still hot and in fusion, indicating a slower cooling process.
The two main reasons why the Moon has cooled much faster are most likely its lower weight and density. A lower density could also explain why it appears to be hollow -possibly like a sponge- and resonant. Furthermore, it seems plausible that a cooled, hardened body like the Moon could resonate in the event of a collision with other bodies. In contrast, a body filled with dense molten material would not resonate in such a way...

 

 

Photons do not experience Time and Space

On this point, I humbly disagree with Einstein. As usual, when considered semantically, the formulation and/or definitions are not optimal. However, many quotes from this brilliant mind are often taken out of context -at least the ones I manage to acquire and eventually understand-…
My first observation is that such an assertion cannot be experimentally verified; it can only be a “thought experiment”. Even if this is the result of calculations, it does not necessarily mean that it is true. Indeed, we now know that mathematical calculations are insufficient to prove theories and assertions that cannot be experimentally verified. If we consider time as a series of events, it might be possible that photons, or any entity traveling at the speed of light, cannot experience events in the traditional manner or not at all. However, the “absolute” concept of time -that is time as a continuum- s not something that can be experienced. As previously explained, at the speed of light, the effect of gravity on our bodies and brains may affect our perception of time, but the time continuum itself remains unaffected. Even at the speed of light, “absolute time” flows normally.…
So what did Einstein mean by “experience”? What were his definitions of “space” and “time”? Is this true only for photons? Does it apply only at the speed of light, or is it a progressive phenomenon that also holds at relativistic speeds?
If this effect is also true for other particles and detectable at relativistic speeds, then since galaxies move at such speeds, we should be able to experience this as well, which is obviously not the case. Is this also true in the context of the expansion of the universe, which occurs faster than the speed of light?
After raising all these relevant questions, let's try to define the first meaningful term in this assertion -namely “experience”-. Experience is a subjective concept. If a photon experiences no time and no space, it does not mean that it doesn't require time to travel a given distance, nor that time and space cease to exist; rather, it implies that it has no perception of time and space. As far as I am concerned, it is extremely difficult -practically impossible- to imagine having no perception of time and space, unless we do not exist at all. The only relevant and rational example that comes to mind is that traveling at the speed of light would “freeze” our bodies and brains; in that case, we might indeed be unable to experience anything… 
Another extremely hypothetical possibility would be time travel. In the case of time travel, I could imagine that a photon or a person might not perceive or experience time and space. 
According to one theory, when traveling at the speed of light, we consequently travel through time. If this is true, then Einstein's assertion could also be valid. However, according to our description and definition of time travel, this hypothetical phenomenon has nothing to do with the speed of light. Thus, according to our current theory, it seems rather unlikely that Einstein's assertion is true. It is also unlikely that we would travel through time as a consequence of reaching the speed of light. Furthermore, if we consider the example of the expansion of the universe, which occurs faster than light, it is evident that we are not traveling through time even though we are moving away from other galaxies at speeds exceeding the speed of light. With utmost respect for the scientific community, either this hypothesis is not formulated correctly, is flawed, or both…

 

 

String Theory and Dimensions

From a semantic perspective, the notion of ten dimensions in string theory is another instance of inappropriate terminology. The definition of the term “dimension” is, so to speak, the “source of evil”. Take, for example, the concept of the fourth spatial dimension. Modern physics claims it is impossible to visualize it in our three-dimensional reality. The most commonly cited example is that a theoretical individual living in two dimensions on a flat sheet of paper could not possibly see or visualize our three-dimensional reality. However, for centuries, we have been able to draw three-dimensional graphics and pictures on a two-dimensional surface. Therefore, if this fourth dimension exists, we should be able to represent it in three dimensions -perhaps as a tesseract-? This notion seems somewhat contradictory.
Furthermore, according to our previous definitions, “dimensions” do not conform to the descriptions provided by modern physics. As stated earlier, there is an infinity of dimensions in our spatial reality -similar to those in a sphere-. Consequently, we must reiterate that the concept of three dimensions is not an appropriate representation of our spatial reality. It is merely a result of our perception, which is strongly influenced by our cultural technological habits. As previously explained, we only require three dimensions to construct our buildings and for orientation in space, while we actually exist in an infinite number of dimensions. Consequently, it seems optimal to redefine the concept of dimension as follows: there is no 0D (because of “0” meaning nothing). Traditionally, we consider 1D, 2D, and 3D. A surface, by the way, is composed of four sides; would this not imply four dimensions?
Additionally, any straight line on paper is effectively a two-dimensional object because, regardless of its thickness, it is still a surface, also known as a 2D element. In our current understanding, it appears that a one-dimensional straight line is solely a theoretical concept. Thus, 1D does not truly exist either, and 2D actually contains four elements and can be considered akin to 4D. To address this incoherent aspect, our more semantically consistent approach is to regard the planar level as “1D” and our spatial reality as “infinite D” (as in a sphere). This approach leads us to define these elements as two sets of dimensions: “1D” (planar) and “infinite D” (spatial). After all, the planar and spatial levels are the only two sets of dimensions we perceive. Therefore, all other concepts that are improperly classified as dimensions should be defined using alternative terms.
For example, let us consider a couple of scenarios in which events seem to involve another “dimension”, using the standard inappropriate definition, and then attempt to describe them with more appropriate terminology. Let’s start with the example of a ship or an object traveling at the speed of light. At this speed, it is logically impossible for the object to be seen moving. However, when it suddenly and abruptly stops before our eyes, it appears to materialize out of nowhere. In this case, standard observers might get the impression that it comes from another “dimension”. This notion also applies to objects emerging from a wormhole. In such instances, the objects originate from a different location through means that are unfamiliar to us and our perception. They do not come from a different “dimension”.
Even more improbable and speculative examples include objects allegedly traveling from the future or from an alternative reality (i.e., a different timeline) that might also give the impression they appeared out of nowhere. Unfortunately, both standard physics and society misuse the term “dimension”, applying it incorrectly in such examples. It’s worth noting that, despite the highly speculative nature of time travel and multiverse theories (including alternative realities and timelines), their existence and hypothetical interactions between our reality and future or alternative realities are conceivable. In any case, from a semantic standpoint, it is more appropriate to use terms like “alternative or future realities” rather than “dimension”.
Finally, having established more appropriate definitions of previous concepts than the term “dimension”, we are better equipped to suggest a more suitable definition for the concept of a fourth spatial dimension, or even extending to ten dimensions. Although these concepts may initially seem difficult to visualize -at least with standard terminology- our understanding of modern physics descriptions suggests that these constructs describe different levels of reality, similar to Russian dolls, with 1D included in 2D, which is included in 3D, and so forth. With our new terminology, these concepts become more conceivable and meaningful. As suggested, the term “levels of reality” may be more appropriate -such as reality level 1 (RL1) and so forth-…

 

 

Double Slit Experiment - 1

I have recorded various data and reports on this experiment, resulting in many questions rather than clear explanations.
My first question is: How reliable are all experiments? How reliable are particle guns? How can we be sure that they project one particle at a time, especially a photon? Are we certain that these devices project particles at all, rather than waves? How can we observe in real time the behavior of a particle traveling at the speed of light? Given the size of the particles in question, it is conceivable and even highly likely that radiation affects their behavior. Are these experiments conducted in shielded conditions? Considering the speed of the projected particles, I strongly suspect that their behavior is not observed in real time but rather deduced from the results of the experiments. How reliable is the human analysis of the data? How dependable are the conclusions and interpretations? What is the certainty that a particle will go through the slit or miss it? Indeed, if particles miss the slits, they hit the matter surrounding the slits, where they will collide with other particles, creating interference and producing a wave pattern on the projection wall.
The most recent data I encountered indicated that the experiment shows one particle splitting into two particles, each going through one slit and then interfering with one another, thereby producing a wave interference pattern on the projection wall. When I attempt to visualize this phenomenon concretely, several thoughts arise. Given the particle's speed, it seems likely that this was not observed in real time but is a deduction based on observable experimental results.
Now, let's consider my interpretation of the same results: if the particle splits or duplicates itself, it would be more likely that the two newly created particles spread apart at an angle, with the distance between them increasing as they progress toward the projection wall. In this scenario, any interaction between them becomes less probable. The only rational interaction that could cause them to generate a wave interference pattern would be a collision. Thus, the farther apart they are, the less chance there is for a collision, which would lead to the observed wave interference pattern on the projection wall.
Alternatively, even if the two new particles were to follow parallel trajectories, something would need to happen for them to collide or interfere, thereby printing a wave pattern on the projection wall. Consequently, the scenario in which one particle splits into two that interfere with each other is quite unrealistic and unlikely. The more plausible scenario is that the particle gun projected a wave, which then passed through the slits and produced its characteristic interference pattern on the projection wall.
In general, it is my humble opinion that the available data supporting the wave behavior of the particle is neither clear nor convincing.
Moreover, according to standard intuitive physics, for a particle to behave like a wave, something must happen to the particle -most likely an event such as a collision causing its disintegration into smaller objects, which would then lead to the wave pattern-. As previously mentioned, the mere presence of radiation could affect such small particles and cause them to disintegrate.
That said, and considering what we know about quantum physics, I acknowledge that “standard intuitive logic” may not be the best approach.
Additionally, the self-duplication hypothesis leads me to a related thought. We know that particles and molecules, such as DNA, duplicate themselves, which is the basis of cell division. Furthermore, it is understood that many molecules in the human body are naturally and spontaneously entangled. Thus, perhaps particles and molecules that duplicate themselves give rise to entangled particles and molecules. Perhaps this phenomenon was “observed” during the double-slit experiment; however, I tend to think that is unlikely.
We cannot conclude with certainty from this experiment that particles also behave as waves.
It is also noteworthy that all fluids move in a wave pattern. We can consider electromagnetic (EM) waves and all possible radiations as a fluid, which would imply that their standard movement follows a wave or helicoidal pattern. Therefore, the wave pattern might be standard, while the non-wave pattern is the anomaly. Consequently, we may need to focus on explaining the non-wave behavior rather than the wave behavior. What causes particles to deviate from the wave pattern? Perhaps modifying the parameters of the experiment could provide more clues. For instance, conducting this experiment in a “shielded” environment might help. Surely all necessary precautions are taken; however, it is possible that the equipment produces undetected radiation that affects the behavior of the particles. Or could it be the presence of undetected natural residual radiation -or both-? One hypothesis could be that detection devices create “counter-radiation” that cancels out the undetected residual natural radiation, generating a “genuine void” in which particles follow a straight path, leading to the non-wave pattern.
Essentially, given our axioms that dictate particles naturally move in a helicoidal pattern, which is systematically represented in 2D on all our flat display screens, I posit that their natural movement is interrupted when detection devices are activated. There is no wave-particle duality; however, my theory strongly supports the relationship between the helicoidal (wave) pattern and the motion of particles…

 

 

Double Slit Experiment - 2

Based on the available graphic information, it appears that the behavior of the particle may not be correctly interpreted. Indeed, the interference pattern is not a result of the particle behaving as a wave. According to most graphic representations I could find, including videos, each particle is shot as a particle and arrives on the projection surface as a particle (dot) and not as a wave. Ultimately, all the dots together create a wave pattern. A better explanation of this observation would require a graphic animation that we cannot provide yet. Despite this limitation, let us attempt to describe the behavior of the particle using words and a rudimentary graphic representation.
If the particle behaved like a wave, then logically, once the particle is shot onto the projection surface via the slits, it should create a wave pattern, similar to waves on a shore, with interference. It should resemble one of the following patterns:
– – – – – – – or 
… … … … … … … or 
~~~~~~~, with each pattern being 1 particle. 
In other words 1 particle = – – – – – – – or 
… … … … … … … or 
~~~~~~~. 
This implies that one particle is shot as a particle and arrives as a wave. If each particle truly behaved like a wave, it should leave a print on the projection wall resembling one of the graphic representations above, which is obviously not the case.
In all typical video illustrations of this experiment, particles are shot one at a time through the slits and land on the projection surface, forming an interference pattern. However, each particle is shot as a particle and arrives as a particle. In the end, all the particles together create an interference pattern. Nevertheless, the final interference pattern is explained by stating that each particle behaves like a wave, which is fundamentally flawed. From this experiment, we can only conclude that all particles collectively form a wave interference pattern. However, based on accurate empirical observation of the behavior of each particle, it is not proven that each individual particle behaves like a wave.
Let us try to reproduce an extremely primitive graphic illustration of the experiment as it is traditionally reported:

The first particle is shot through the slits and arrives here:
        .

The second particle is shot through the slits and arrives here:
                 .

The third particle is shot through the slits and arrives here:
 .

The fourth particle is shot through the slits and arrives here:

             .

And so on… 

Each dot represents a “column”. After a sufficient number of particles have been shot, all these "columns" form a wave interference pattern. However, despite the clear fact that all particles together create a wave interference pattern, we can empirically observe that each particle arrives as a discrete particle and not as a wave, as illustrated in the initial example. It is possible, though, that between the moment of the shot and the impact, each particle transforms into a wave only to revert to a particle again; however, this has never been empirically observed and seems rather unlikely.
For some reason, it appears that the scientific community has illogically deduced the behavior of a single particle from the overall wave pattern. It is also feasible that the graphic video representations I have seen were misrepresented and/or that I misunderstood them. Nonetheless, according to my understanding, the wave behavior of a particle is a comprehensible but erroneous deduction. It seems strongly that the hypothetical wave behavior of any particle has never been actually observed; it was merely inferred incorrectly. The standard experiment does not demonstrate that any single particle behaves like a wave, despite the obvious global wave pattern formed by all the particles…

 

 

Wave Function

Following our logical conclusion that the double-slit experiments do not convincingly prove that particles behave as waves, we must question the theory and validity of the wave function. If particles are not waves at all, then the wave function may be an intriguing statistical model, but it is ultimately irrelevant and not valid -at least not at a fundamental level-.
The wave function represents a statistical distribution. It applies to a group of particles shaped by a wave pattern. It is reasonable to predict that a group of similar particles will spread in a specific way; for example, photons may spread differently from electrons. However, this does not prove that each photon and each electron is simultaneously a wave and a particle -not at all-. This assertion is an interpretation.
Let us summarize what we have empirically observed. According to my theory, we know that particles, especially photons, move in a helicoidal shape (wave pattern). When devices are turned on, for whatever reason, this helicoidal pattern is altered, resulting in particles spreading directly. To me, it appears that the global wave force carrying the particles is affected. It is misleading to explain this phenomenon using the wave-particle duality. Neither the experiment itself nor the wave function proves this duality; it is merely a generally accepted speculation.
The accuracy of the wave function lies in its ability to measure an existing phenomenon, but not the behavior of individual particles. Instead, it reflects the global helicoidal (wave) phenomenon that carries the particles. The very definition of this hypothesis indicates that it focuses on a global phenomenon: statistical distribution.
There is no quantum dual state. A particle is not everywhere simultaneously; when it is observed and detected, it is localized in space. This is an interpretation. The idea that we can statistically predict the distribution of a group of particles and their corresponding energy is reasonable. However, concluding from this observation that each particle simultaneously exhibits wave and particle behavior is a flawed leap of faith.
Nonetheless, the possibility that the wave function actually measures the global helicoidal wave phenomenon carrying the particles is extremely rational and interesting. The wave function could be valuable for better observing and predicting the behavior of electromagnetic (EM) waves and many other similar phenomena, including electricity.
The distribution of particles illustrates the 2D shape of the helicoidal phenomenon, showing the size of this helicoidal wave phenomenon -essentially, the size of the “screwdriver” that we previously mentioned metaphorically-.
I want to emphasize that in this work, I do not reject the experiments conducted; I simply reinterpret them. It is no coincidence that all my assumptions fit together perfectly. In fact, it is challenging for me to find different and new experiments to support my arguments, as I rely on the existing ones. All existing experiments necessarily validate my position…

 

 

Quantization of Space and Time

This theory contrasts with the current scientific understanding. Our theory acknowledges the quantization of matter and energy particles of various sizes. However, we posit the infinite division of matter through energy, which also implies the infinite division of energy. If all particles are trapped in an electro-gravitational field and can be infinitely divided, then the electro-gravitational fields must also be infinitely small. Yet, the quantization of matter and energy does not necessarily imply that our continuum is quantized. It is possible that a supporting medium or ether, in which energy and matter interact, may be quantized while evolving within our intangible continuum, without any possible interaction.
Furthermore, when considered logically, it is strictly impossible to quantize the absolute void. We can define units of measure and measure existing elements, including energy, but not the absolute void. Thus, if we indeed exist in a quantized environment, it may be akin to an ether, as previously mentioned.
Moreover, this conclusion appears to rely heavily on the observation of electrons, whose distance from the nucleus follows a step pattern, or quantization. Is it observed that these same electrons also follow a quantized pattern when involved in the conduction of electricity? Is it noted that the orbital trajectory of electrons around the nucleus is quantized? Is it also observed that the spinning motion of particles is quantized? Additionally, do photons of EM waves follow a quantized pattern? If particles are also waves -which we previously demonstrated to be false- do these waves exhibit a quantized pattern?
We must also consider that our perception and our most accurate detection devices can only function according to a quantized pattern. Therefore, we should not dismiss the possibility of misinterpretation due to a limited or flawed measurement device or process…

 

 

Entanglement, Anti-particles and Higgs-Boson

This essay raises more questions than answers regarding entanglement, or even ideas for possible answers.
Have we ever been able to artificially entangle antiparticles? If entanglement is a natural phenomenon, is it possible that particles in our galaxy are entangled with particles in other galaxies? If that were true, could we use this property to create “portals” that transport us instantly to those galaxies? Alternatively, could such portals naturally exist?
Is it possible to entangle Higgs bosons?
Does the Higgs boson have an antiparticle, known as the anti-Higgs boson?


Beyond the Universe

There is a popular theory regarding what lies beyond the universe, which suggests that there is no void because space and time expand with the universe. Once again, the rational visualization of this claim is unclear. The fact that I -or we- cannot visualize something does not necessarily mean that it does not exist or is not possible. However, with the utmost respect, I remain convinced that the proponents of this hypothesis lack a realistic understanding of it.
In this theory, it has been axiomatically posited on many occasions that space and time are infinite continua that can neither be bent, touched, nor modified in any way. Only our perception of them is variable.
Let us imagine, as concretely as possible, a situation without space and/or without time. Starting with time: if time does not exist, then logically, everything freezes. There is no movement, and thus no expansion of the universe.
Imagining a concrete situation without space is more challenging, as it is more unusual. However, I have tried to conceptualize it and have come up with the following hypothesis: if there is no space, or if space suddenly disappears, it means there is no distance between objects. All people and objects around us would suddenly merge with us -the observer- resulting in the whole universe contracting into a point that tends to grow smaller. In this scenario, the situation worsens because expansion would not only stop and freeze, but the universe would also contract. Semantically, the term "space" necessarily denotes the absence of any possible element, be it matter or energy. Space is nothing more than absolute void. Thus, if there is no void and no space beyond the universe, whatever exists must be contracting.
How can our universe expand in something that is contracting and/or freezing, especially if there is no time? How can our universe expand in or be surrounded by something that either freezes or contracts, or both? The idea that there is no void beyond the universe and that time and space expand with it is an extremely interesting thought experiment. However, as a semanticist -whose core competence is to study the relationship between words and their corresponding visual representations in the human mind- I am convinced that the proponents of this hypothesis have not thought it through thoroughly.
Moreover, since space is the absolute void, it cannot possibly disappear because it represents nothing. Elements such as energy and matter may disappear, but absolute nothing can neither appear nor vanish. Either there is something somewhere, or there is nothing. Where there is nothing, there is necessarily space. Space is to everything that exists what darkness is to light. We cannot create or eliminate darkness; rather, darkness is the absence of light. It is only possible to enable or disable light. Consequently, we arrive at the highly likely conclusion that the universe necessarily expands and exists within space and time. Space and time do not expand with the universe.
The example of the expanding balloon is not convincing. Furthermore, the example of the Andromeda and Milky Way galaxies on a collision course disproves the balloon analogy.
Lastly, when considered logically, an observer outside the universe should not be able to see it. Let us suppose that the observer has passed the external galaxies at the periphery of the universe. This observer should still be able to see the light from these galaxies. However, the light and all other non-visible EM waves and radiations are part of the universe. Therefore, as long as our observer can see the universe, it necessarily means they are still within it…

 

 

FTL, Time Travel and the Holographic Universe

As previously explained, every moment we experience is a unique constellation of all the particles in the universe. Traveling back in time necessarily implies the reconstitution of the exact constellation of particles at the point in time to which we want to return. Consequently, when we consider this realistically, there is clearly no rational or visualizable correlation between traveling at the speed of light and reconstituting a constellation of particles. How can a ship traveling at the speed of light cause the universe to “rewind” and rebuild a past constellation of particles? This notion becomes even less conceivable when we consider that the universe would need to contract in order to reproduce a past constellation of particles, as it was not as widely expanded in the past as it is in the present. We would surely notice that.
However, while deepening my thoughts on this topic, a different possibility came to mind. Hypothetically, visible light and all other non-visible radiation emitted by a celestial body could carry all information related to that body since its inception. For instance, a non-human civilization located 65 million light-years away from Earth would logically see dinosaurs. Let us imagine that this civilization travels toward us at the speed of light or faster; they would see the entire history of Earth in chronological order until they arrive and witness present-day Earth. Simultaneously, while traveling faster than light, they would catch up with the light coming from their own planet and would be able to observe their own history. However, logically considered, their own history would unfold backward, as they would be leaving the present to catch up with data emitted in their past.
Within the framework of this hypothesis, traveling faster than light could give the impression of time travel, but it would not constitute genuine time travel. It would be more akin to watching a film -a holographic film-. In the context of such a hypothesis, there would be no means to interact with or change anything in the timeline.
Finally, it might be interesting to note that the sum of all data carried by visible light and other EM waves in the universe would constitute a holographic universe…

 

 

The Big Rip

I have heard mention of the Big Rip a couple of times, but, as usual, the descriptions of the phenomenon were not optimal. We do observe the expansion of the universe, but it is important to clarify that this expansion does not apply to the galaxies themselves. The distance between galaxies increases, and at some point, it is logical to imagine that they will be so far apart that nothing will hold them together, which is the essence of the Big Rip. But what happens to the galaxies themselves? Will they die because they are no longer bound to each other, or because they lack sufficient matter to create stars? Furthermore, even if they die, does that mean the matter and energy they contain will disappear too?
According to my understanding of the law of conservation of energy, energy can never be destroyed. Therefore, the question arises: how can we reconcile the Big Rip with the law of conservation of energy?
According to the Big Rip hypothesis, all matter -from electrons to galaxies- should be torn apart because there is not enough energy or force to hold them together. If this is the case, then, since the distance between galaxies is already increasing, we should logically expect to observe a similar effect within galaxies and possibly at the subatomic level. Indeed, the assumption that all matter would be affected by the Big Rip necessarily implies that the force -potentially dark energy- tearing the universe apart also acts uniformly at subatomic and galactic levels.
It seems rather unlikely that such a force would continuously tear the universe apart while impacting galaxies and subatomic particles discretely at a certain point. While it is not impossible, we have never observed such a phenomenon, making it statistically extremely improbable -definitely unrealistic-.
Finally, another relevant observation suggests the existence of the Great Attractor, which operates in apparent contradiction to the Big Rip. How could these two concepts coexist?…

 

 

Space Tech Idea - Breathe in Space - A Stupid Idea

When we breathe, we inhale O₂ and exhale CO₂. Is it possible to invent a device or system that separates carbon (C) from O₂? One potential application would be in spacesuits, which could reduce weight by eliminating the need for a separate oxygen reserve. With such a system, the breathing mechanism could become a closed loop. The O₂ from the exhaled CO₂ would be separated from the C, allowing us to inhale this O₂ again. This is essentially the same principle as a free energy circuit, but adapted for breathing.
The main challenge would be to manufacture a machine that is light and compact enough to be integrated into a spacesuit. We know that modern submarines can produce their oxygen supply from water; perhaps a similar system could be developed to separate O₂ from C. If it is not feasible to incorporate such a system into a spacesuit, it might be possible to integrate it into a space station instead…

 

 

Universal Geometrical-Algebraic Language

This hypothesis assumes that non-human civilizations with a sense of sight similar to ours may have also developed writing skills and are most likely able to see and identify geometrical forms as we do. Furthermore, for logical analytical purposes, it is necessary to consider that, from a semantic standpoint, our mathematical symbols are most likely specific to us and recognizable only by humans, whereas geometrical forms are genuinely universal -valid throughout the entire universe-. Consequently, we can reasonably suppose that any species with a similar sense of sight might not be able to recognize the number 3 using our standard symbols, but they would likely be able to identify a triangle. Thus, it should be universally understood that a triangle symbolizes 3, a square symbolizes 4, a pentagon symbolizes 5, and so on.
If mathematics is the universal language, then geometrical shapes might serve as the universal symbols used to communicate this language, at least for its basic algebraic aspects.
Moreover, we know that for a given surface, the straight lines composing geometrical figures are always shorter, and the number of sides increases up to the “perfect” circle, which is nothing more than an infinity of straight lines, each tending toward zero. Each straight line that approaches a length of zero is effectively a point. This is why we should logically expect the perfect circle to be the universal symbol for infinity (∞).
Consequently, the next question is how to represent large numbers, such as 954,713, for instance. The simplest solution would be to draw a polygon with 954,713 sides. However, any species with a similar sense of sight to ours might not be able to identify or instantly count the number of sides. Undoubtedly, most humans would struggle to differentiate between 954,713 and 954,714. For those who are not accustomed to counting and working with basic polygons -i.e., most humans- it can already be challenging to distinguish a nonagon from a decagon. Thus, I propose that the easiest solution could be to replace our traditional symbols with corresponding universal geometrical ones, or to find another appropriate convention. In this case, instead of a series of Arabic numerals, we would use a series of basic geometrical shapes, which I unfortunately cannot depict accurately in this document.
Another question arises: how do we represent zero? What symbol could be used to denote zero? Perhaps none, because zero signifies the absence of anything, making it logical to symbolize this number with a “blank space”. Clearly, in a universal mathematical language, we cannot represent zero using our traditional Arabic numeral, as this would lead to confusion. If there were indeed a universal symbol for zero, I currently have no idea what it would look like. However, I believe a logical convention could be established to determine that symbol.
Additionally, how would operations be symbolized? How could we universally represent addition (+), subtraction (−), multiplication (×), division (÷), as well as integral signs, square roots, cubes, etc.? We would need to consider universal conventions for mathematical symbols. Surely, we would have to review and revise all our symbols to conform to these universal standards -and most likely review our sense of logic as well, including concepts such as 1 + 1, as described earlier-…

Form of Intelligence and God

In this document, as well as in the previous version, I have suggested the strong possibility that matter and particles might be intelligent and conscious of their own existence. Among other points, I explained that even if particles are not intelligent, they are at least organized in an intelligent manner. The examples of cell division and our immune system support the notion that intelligence created us. If aliens were responsible for this, I am uncertain where they obtained the necessary technology. Similarly, I do not know who or what inspired that technology.
If God is indeed the mysterious intelligence behind all this, it may not make much difference in the grand scheme of things. As I explained in this document's time travel chapter, any form of intelligence that created the universe cannot possibly be humanoid because the universe, as we know it, did not exist before the alleged Big Bang. Consequently, only an immaterial form of intelligence could have created the universe and possibly life. In any case, if God exists, it cannot be fully comprehended or understood by anyone. Not even all humans together, nor all life forms in this universe combined, could fully grasp or understand God.
Furthermore, there is also the possibility that the universe was born randomly and that God itself emerged from the universe. Regardless, examples such as cell division and our immune system clearly tend to support the idea that the intelligence that created us originates from the infinitely small rather than the infinitely large. It comes from the infinitely small and expands into the infinitely large -much like the Big Bang-.
In both this version and the previous one, I also audaciously proposed the argument that cells -and probably particles as well- are conscious, at least of their own existence and that of their peers. These aspects are explored in the following essays of this manuscript -essays on spirituality and A.I.-…


Consciousness Re-defined

This topic may not seem to belong in this essay; however, since we have referenced the double-slit experiment, which is often linked to consciousness, it is worthwhile to present a brief analysis on the subject.
What is consciousness? How can we define it?
Based on the logical reflections developed in this essay, I conclude that awareness, consciousness, and perception require at least two entities or elements. Indeed, one entity or particle alone in an absolute void -without any other material or energetic element with which it can interact- might not even be able to move. If it could move, it likely would not be able to perceive its own movement or be aware of its own existence.
Let us consider this information as an axiom. It is a hypothetical fact we cannot prove, but it seems logical and rational and must be articulated to explain further phenomena.
Furthermore, let’s try to empirically observe consciousness. For example, if we see light, it necessarily means that we perceive it. Beyond merely perceiving light, we also process it “consciously and subconsciously”, and this action of processing what we perceive may be termed “consciousness”. Thus, from our empirical observations, we conclude that consciousness is intimately linked to perception. Perception itself is the interaction between any detected element and any sensory apparatus enabling detection. For instance, the ability to see results from the interaction of electromagnetic (EM) waves with our eyes. Logically, it seems meaningful and rational to say that consciousness is the result of an interaction between the considered entity and some external element.
Even the internal consciousness of our own selves appears to work in a similar fashion. Each human being is nothing more than a collection of cells. From our bodily sensations such as touch or hunger to meditation and self-awareness, these actions are the result of the interactions of our cells -the interactions among the multiple consciousnesses of all our cells-. As mentioned previously, each of our cells is conscious of its own existence, and perhaps even particles are conscious of their own existence. In any case, our empirical observations strongly suggest that the phenomenon we call consciousness validates the hypothetical axiom we proposed at the beginning of this discussion: for consciousness to exist, an interaction between different elements is necessary.
Considering that the universe relies on the interaction between matter and energy, it follows that our perception of time and space also relies on this interaction. Not only does our perception of time and space depend on the matter-energy interaction, but so does our consciousness. Perhaps consciousness relies not only on this interaction but, without a doubt, at least partly on it.
Consequently, consciousness seems to result from interactions rather than being due to a single element or entity. It is akin to a composite element like water (H₂O). Just like water, consciousness may be formed and decomposed according to environmental conditions -such as pressure and temperature-.
Our current hypothesis may be incorrect; in that case, consciousness could be a singular, indivisible element. However, the fact that each individual possesses its own consciousness suggests that consciousness is divisible. If it is divisible, it is very likely composed of multiple elements.
A related question arises about the subconscious. When we refer to consciousness, we inevitably also reference the subconscious, even if only subconsciously. What role does the subconscious play in the phenomenon of consciousness?
Finally, Descartes famously said, “I think, therefore I am”. According to him, thinking is proof of conscious existence. I would rather assert: “I feel pain (or pleasure), therefore I am”. In this framework, perception is the proof of our conscious existence. Surely my readers will agree with this assertion: as long as we feel pain, we undoubtedly know we exist -and sometimes we may even wish we didn’t-.
Conversely, there are times when we can be in a state of delirium. Delirium is a special mental state in which we feel neither pain nor pleasure, during which we might doubt our own existence or fail to be aware of it. This example illustrates how we can think while simultaneously not being fully conscious of the world and our existence. Consequently, thinking might not be the ultimate proof of existence.
Moreover, philosophically speaking, we do not even need to be in a state of delirium to question our existence. The very act of questioning existence on a philosophical level involves using thought to convince ourselves that we might not exist, which would make thinking contrary to Descartes' assertion. On the other hand, the perception of pain and pleasure leaves no room for doubt. When we feel, we indubitably and unavoidably exist.
In any case, our consciousness acts as the inevitable filter through which we perceive the universe, making this topic a relevant part of this essay. By including a philosophical aspect in our reflections, this work expands our understanding of physics beyond the boundaries of traditional physics and mathematics. It represents a form of re-appropriation of these scientific fields by the general public, by ordinary individuals. It serves as a form of rebellion, a revolution in the sharing of knowledge -a silent, respectful, and peaceful endeavor-…

 

 

Conclusion - Theory of Everything

This unconventional document was initially intended solely to address the topic of the curvature of space-time, and it concludes in a manner that my readers have witnessed. It was not written in accordance with the traditional style of scientific papers. However, there is at least one consistent aspect: it ends as it began -that is, unconventionally-. I wrote this work over seven years without focusing on a single topic; instead, I simply recorded my thoughts and, over time, reviewed, corrected, and completed them. After nearly a decade, although I am not a specialist, I have had the opportunity to immerse myself more deeply in these topics than most people can imagine. Consequently, despite its unconventional nature, this is a serious piece of work. What started as a lucky guess has gradually become more professional. A considerable amount of effort has been invested.
As previously mentioned, when I began writing this essay, I had no awareness of its scientific implications or the fact that it challenged the theory of relativity and others. I was indirectly informed -albeit unofficially- that this is a theory of everything. I also learned that claiming to write such a theory is an ambitious and bold endeavor. However, I reiterate that I had no pretensions, nor could I have had any, since I was unaware of the significance of what I was doing. I simply documented my interpretation of existing experiments and observed phenomena.
That said, this theory effectively links phenomena at both subatomic and astronomical levels. We established a solid correlation between spin and gravity, combined with the axiom that all particles and celestial objects are trapped within an electro-gravitational field. We defined energy more accurately than has traditionally been done and demonstrated logically that forces and movement are different sides of the same coin: energy. We also posited, logically and axiomatically, that electric charge and gravity are rectilinear and circular forms of energy, and that their combination results in magnetism. This helps explain the motion and nature of electromagnetic (EM) waves as well as their interaction with particles.
The theory succeeds in explaining many phenomena that have been deemed contradictory by other theories. Despite my limited official experience and credentials in the field, I have a strong sense that it is no coincidence this theory explains so many concepts so perfectly and rationally. This is a compelling indication that there is little chance of it being incorrect. While I could not possibly cover all the topics that some readers and critics may wish for me to address, I predict that any more comprehensive theory that approaches truth will corroborate nearly all the points raised in this essay.
Furthermore, as previously explained, I understand the need for additional experimental evidence and mathematical formulations. Regarding the necessity for experimental evidence, the first issue is that I simply reinterpreted existing experiments. Thus, there is not an urgent need for more experiments -there are already undoubtedly enough-. However, a few new experiments could enrich this theory and science, whether by validating it or disproving it.
Additionally, I wrote this document in the very limited free time available to me. Given that I am not a “professional scientist”, I am occupied with a completely unrelated professional activity that consumes most of my time. I neither have the financial nor logistical means to address these understandable requirements. I lack the necessary funding, relevant materials (software and hardware), and connections to secure such resources. The scientific community must conduct the necessary experiments and find appropriate mathematical formulations on their own. From my perspective, I recommend experiments related to gravitational effects and anti-gravity, as well as studies using EM waves as a tool to manipulate matter. The following addendum of suggestions for space technologies should toward relevant experiments. That said, I wholeheartedly invite them to provide comments, feedback, and contact me for further details. I would be glad to assist within the limits of my financial and logistical capabilities.
Finally, it is difficult for me to assess the potential impact of this theory. Given the limited feedback I have received, I anticipate strong disagreement from the scientific community. Being isolated and lacking connections in this field presents a serious obstacle to an objective evaluation of this work. Nevertheless, I humbly believe that this theory could radically and fundamentally change our conception of physics and mathematics -while also democratizing them to some extent- transforming the way we interpret data and, ultimately, our understanding of the universe…