The Mystery of All Mysteries Solved

William writes:

Glenn -- I read in today's Toronto Star (Aug. 11), an article entitled, "The Mystery of All Mysteries" by Oakland Ross. I don't doubt that the topic is over my head, especially mathematically. And, if this doesn't deserve an answer, please don't. I just write from the depths of my curiosity.

If I understand, which isn't so sure, Space and Time shrink or expand in relation to the observers and at other speeds than the speed of Light. At those other speeds, it happens to them what happens to Time and Space; meaning, they speed up and slow down in relation to the observers. This means that there is only one reality, the speed of Light; those "vibrations" send the photons at the constant speed of Light while their situation, according to the observers, is in relation to shrinking and expanding of Space and Time. Are Time, Space, speed only illusions of the observers? How to explain the mechanism of all of this? And what are energy and matter? What is Space and Time that can shrink and expand? What is the mathematical enigma that can explain all this?

Of course  I need to submit much more precise information to you. If you happen upon the article and can give me your most simple explanation, I would appreciate it.

Thanks Glenn and many happy returns,
William Markiewicz


Nice to hear from you again. Like so many others, it seems that you are being fed the usual media claptrap sponsored by regressive physics. And, as usual, this has nothing to do with mathematics and everything to do with philosophy. When paradoxes appear in a theory, you can be sure that the theory is invalid. In particular, relativity is invalid because of Einstein’s objectification of motion, which was the subject of the most important paper I wrote last year (Borchardt, 2011). The upshot is that time is motion. Time can not be dilated; only things can be dilated. Einstein had to do this to keep c constant, otherwise his primary assumption that light velocity was constant would have made it obvious even to indeterminists that his theory was invalid. After dismissing the aether, he had to adopt the corpuscular theory of light. Photons are said to travel at c through perfectly empty space. However, when light is considered as wave motion within a medium, its velocity is dependent on the characteristics of that medium. That is why light speed in water is about 2/3 of what it is in a “vacuum”. Even the properties of the aether vary throughout intergalactic space (Puetz and Borchardt, 2011). Light travels slower in water because aether density is less in water than in air.  

Your specific questions:

“shrinking and expanding of Space and Time?”

Space, being matter, can shrink or expand. Again, time, being motion, cannot.

Time, Space, speed -- are only illusions of the observers?

No way. Matter and motion definitely are not illusions of the observers even though that is one of the fundamental assumptions (immaterialism) of indeterminists, with Einstein being the best example (e.g., immaterial fields, etc.). The test is simple. You probably have already experienced it by being hit by a baseball. Do you really think that was an illusion?

How to explain the mechanism of all of this?

Mechanism involves microcosms hitting other microcosms, just like Newton said. Mechanism assumes that the universe consists of nothing more than matter in motion. Mechanism, like materialism, has always been a dirty word among indeterminists. Einstein's counter revolution gladdened the hearts of indeterminists worldwide. But that is no way to run science. It has set physics back for more than a century. That is why Steve and I had so much success by dispensing with the matter-motion terms momentum, force, and energy. This forced us to continually ask the question: What is hitting what? No conversion of matter into matterless motion for us!

And what are energy and matter?

Energy is E=mc2, an equation that we use to describe matter in motion (Borchardt, 2009). Energy neither exists nor occurs. It is a convenient shorthand, but has become fetishized by regressive physicists and almost everyone else. This is why there often is much confusion when it is discussed. Sometimes energy is thought of as matter; sometimes it is thought of as motion. If you weren’t confused by energy, you weren’t paying attention in your “modern physics” class.

Matter is an xyz portion of the universe that contains other matter in finitum. This is another confusing term invariably left undefined in your modern physics class, mostly because regressive physicists assume finity (that finite particles exist and that the universe is finite). I might add, that matter is really an abstraction. There is no “matter” per se, just like there is no fruit per se. There are only specific examples of each.

What is Space and Time that can shrink and expand? What is the mathematical enigma that can explain all this?

Forget about expanding space-time. Like energy, it doesn’t exist. It is needed, of course, for the BBT to obviate our seeming location at the center of what cosmogonists consider to be the finite universe. Again, no math will ever eliminate the confusion of the Toronto Star and the regressive physicists who are praying for a solution to the mysteries cooked up by Einstein.


Borchardt, G., 2009, The physical meaning of E=mc2: Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, v. 6, no. 1 (http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/The%20Physical%20Meaning%20of%20E%20=%20mc22.pdf)

Borchardt, G., 2011, Einstein's Most Important Philosophical Error. Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011, v. 8, p. 64-68. (http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5991.pdf)

Puetz, S. J., and Borchardt, G., 2011, Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe, Denver, Outskirts Press (www.universalcycletheory.com), 626 p.

No comments: