From the very beginning, we have known there is a problem with the theories of gravity:
“Gravity is a force that acts on all objects, regardless of their mass.” — Galileo
“Every particle attracts every other particle with a force that is proportional to the product of their masses…” — Newton
“The curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of matter…”— Einstein
It isn’t the intention to slight great physicists who, along the way, discovered more clues and deciphered nature’s quirks. Instead, the purpose is to understand assumptions so that further progress is achievable. By recognizing the vulnerability of the scientific community to intellectual investment, we can better navigate the pursuit of knowledge and foster an environment of open-minded inquiry.
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” – Carl Sagan
Throughout scientific history, theories and concepts have often been intertwined, sometimes leading to unexpected turns and developments. Consider Sir Isaac Newton’s invention of calculus, motivated by the need to address specific challenges in physics, such as understanding the motion of celestial bodies and the concept of gravity. This illustrates how the development of one theory or tool can be driven by the necessity to solve problems posed by another theory. In Newton’s case, calculus provided the mathematical framework necessary to formalize his laws of motion and universal gravitation, ultimately revolutionizing our understanding of the physical world. Such instances underscore the interconnectedness and complexity of scientific endeavors, where solutions to one puzzle often give rise to new insights and innovations.
The “Bamboozles” section is designed to challenge and refine our understanding by addressing common misconceptions and areas where incomplete information might lead to misunderstandings. This section doesn’t seek to destroy ideas but rather to polish them, adding a glossy finish that acknowledges imperfections as opportunities for deeper insight and improvement.
Much of the following is based on the correlation of observations with theories of the day. While it is always comforting to have a theory explained, there are some areas where more investigation is warranted. Possibly some existing assumptions are incorrect. These are listed here:
Symbols
Bamboozle: Once you have defined a symbol you have defined a point of view
The symbols and terminology used in scientific research can profoundly shape the understanding, interpretation, and exploration of phenomena. When a symbol like “black hole” is introduced, it carries implicit assumptions and biases that influence the trajectory of theoretical development. For instance, “black hole” evokes an image of an abyss where energy and matter disappear into an unreachable void. This framing has led to theories and questions aligned with this conceptualization. However, if the same entity were described as a “nexus of energy” or a “concentration point,” the focus might shift toward understanding how energy gathers, transforms, or radiates, leading to entirely different lines of inquiry.
Clarity and precision in choosing symbols are crucial in scientific research. Symbols guide data interpretation, shape the questions asked, and influence the hypotheses formed. Ambiguous or misleading symbols can create conceptual traps, where researchers may fixate on tangential or incorrect interpretations. To advance knowledge effectively, symbols must reflect the underlying realities as accurately as possible, enabling a clearer, more unbiased exploration of the phenomena.
Bamboozle: Physics
The definition of physics as a branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and physical phenomena leaves out energy—a critical oversight. Enough said.
Peer Review
One of the most pernicious aspects of science is peer review. It makes any new idea subject to the acceptance views of the old established gatekeepers of “reality” based on the frauds, and money schemes of the past.
Invariably, peer review involves working at a university or research institution who are paid for the work involved in such reviews. New ideas require proof, not profit for professors who have preconceived ideas.
New ideas are just that – NEW. There is no state-of-the-art or previous understanding. They are likely to be disruptive and thus go against the rain of preconceived or taught beliefs. Many are going to be against it, as those looking at the idea might be sure of their original or new concepts fomenting in their minds. They certainly will be against anything that detracts from their esteemed position or funding they have lined up.
New ideas don’t require committees and rarely come from them. They are the product of fresh minds looking at the existing and connecting the dots in new ways, not in support or furthering existing ideas by patching them with greater complexity, therefore shutting out the new and re-establishing the old.
Awards and Prizes
The idea of prizes for new or novel ideas might be an incentive. Still, they lose their luster when they become politically motivated to show that the new ideas obey the rules and propagate politics of brainwashing.
Mathematical Constructs
Bamboozle: Great equations are blueprints of possibilities, not certainties
In the vast realm of physics, the towering equations that have shaped our understanding of the universe stand not as irrefutable proofs but rather as eloquent models, sketching the intricate contours of what might exist. These equations, revered and celebrated, serve as profound blueprints, offering glimpses into the potential architecture of reality.
Each iconic equation, be it Einstein’s E=mc2, Maxwell’s equations, or Schrödinger’s wave equation, is a manifestation of human ingenuity—a crafted model seeking to capture the essence of observed phenomena. They are not immutable laws etched in stone; instead, they are dynamic frameworks open to refinement, evolution, and even paradigm-shifting revolutions.
In the realm of the great equations, scientists navigate the uncharted waters of the cosmos armed with these mathematical guides. These equations encapsulate our best attempts to articulate the language of the universe, offering a roadmap for exploration rather than a decree dictating cosmic certainties.
Equations are not infallible edicts; they are companions in a dance with uncertainty. As our knowledge expands, these equations may witness revisions, additions, or even replacements. Their inherent fluidity is a testament to the humility of scientific exploration—a recognition that our models are, at best, poetic interpretations of a reality that continually eludes complete capture.
In the realm of physics, the great equations are not conclusions; they are invitations—to venture into the unexplored realms of possibility and illuminate the cosmos with the ever-burning torch of curiosity. They are not dogmatic doctrines but rather doorways to discovery, urging us to question, explore, and refine our understanding of the cosmic fabric.
Bamboozle: Mathematics is the final answer
While pure mathematics stands as an enduring testament to the power of logical deduction, its scope sometimes falls short in capturing the full complexity of the universe. Formulas like Ohm’s Law provide a snapshot approach to obtaining values, while calculus can discern values within limits. However, they lack the capacity to handle sequential calculations based on multiple inputs with decision points—a capability crucial for understanding intricate phenomena.
Sequential challenges commonly emerge in numerical analysis, notably in solving differential equations. These equations, ubiquitous in physics, engineering, and beyond, demand approximate solutions obtained through methods like Euler’s method or Runge-Kutta techniques. Here, each step builds upon previous values, iteratively refining the solution.
Optimization presents another realm where mathematics grapples with sequences. Optimization tasks entail finding the best solution from a set of possibilities under constraints. Algorithms like gradient descent or simulated annealing iteratively refine solutions until reaching an optimal or near-optimal outcome.
In the realm of machine learning and artificial intelligence, mathematics confronts complex sequential puzzles, such as pattern recognition and decision-making. Algorithms within these fields learn from data, adjusting parameters iteratively to enhance performance—illustrating the iterative nature of problem-solving in sequential contexts.
Bamboozle: The All-Encompassing (Almost) Equation – Schrödinger’s Wave Trick
Schrödinger’s wave equation reigns supreme in the quantum realm, its calculations predicting the whereabouts of elusive quantum particles. But hold on! This equation, while incredibly powerful, isn’t the absolute ruler it might seem. Here’s the twist:
Schrödinger’s equation doesn’t pinpoint a particle’s exact location. Instead, it gives us the probability of finding it in a certain region – a kind of blurry picture rather than a sharp snapshot. This probabilistic nature is a core concept in quantum mechanics.
The equation describes particles using wavefunctions. This is where the “bamboozle” comes in. While the wavefunction can predict the behavior of a particle, it doesn’t necessarily mean the particle itself is a perfect wave. Classically, waves can have well-defined starting and stopping points, which can lead to additional frequencies (sidebands) flanking the main frequency. However, particles, by definition, are localized objects and wouldn’t exhibit sidebands in the same way.
The equation can predict sidebands even for transitions between energy levels. This might seem counterintuitive if the particle is undergoing a clean transition. Here’s the catch: the sidebands can arise due to the limitations of the model or imperfections in the transition itself. In a perfectly isolated system with a truly ideal transition, the sidebands might disappear. However, achieving such perfect isolation is extremely difficult in practice.
So, Schrödinger’s wave equation is a fantastic tool, but it doesn’t provide a complete picture. It highlights the fascinating complexity of the quantum world, where the wavefunction describes probabilities and particles aren’t necessarily classical waves. The equation’s predictions, including sidebands, need to be interpreted within this framework.
MATH Recap
Our understanding of the universe is built on the powerful language of mathematics. Equations like those of Einstein, Maxwell, and Schrödinger have become iconic tools for describing and predicting phenomena. However, these equations are not absolute truths, but rather evolving models. They capture the essence of observed phenomena, but may not reflect the ultimate “true nature” of reality. Just as a map guides us without dictating every step, these equations serve as roadmaps for exploration, acknowledging the inherent limitations of our knowledge and the possibility of future revisions or even replacements. Furthermore, the focus on singular calculations in pure math can fall short in complex scenarios requiring sequential decision-making. Here, iterative methods become crucial, highlighting the power of step-by-step approaches in tackling intricate problems. Ultimately, mathematics serves as a springboard for discovery, not a final destination. It’s a language that allows us to explore the universe, embrace uncertainty, and continuously refine our understanding of the cosmos.
Absolutes and Singularities
Bamboozle: Absolute zero
The temperature at which all atomic and molecular motion stops. However, it is impossible to achieve a temperature of absolute zero in practice because there is always some residual heat energy present in any system, as absolute zero is only the probable medium of the energy contained in a photon, as quantum mechanics dictates only the probability of this number. Actually, the closest thing we have to the idea of absolute zero is the noise of plus or minus a half-quantum.
Bamboozle: A perfect vacuum of free space
A theoretical vacuum that is completely devoid of any matter or energy. It is important to note that free space is a theoretical concept. In practice, it is impossible to create a perfect vacuum. There is no place in the universe where this “free space” is found. In fact there is plenty of information to show the existence of an interstellar medium, the stuff that makes up new stars.
The idea of free space enabled scientific theory to rely on this hypothetical concept to declare, as a result, “the speed of light is constant”, and then use this to justify changing a constant defined by human intelligence into a variable. It is not a real situation!
Einstein’s “relative vacuum,” in which the speed of light is specified as a constant, cannot exist. Even if space itself does not contain objects, the energy of visible light sets up a lattice of waves with μ0 and ε0 characteristics that populate space. It is this lattice that sets the speed of energy, even though it might not be in space without energy. Fields still exist, but only at different values than those seen at different densities of energy and particles.
Just think about it: If the vacuum of space were perfect, there would be nothing in it for an ARC to be created. The breakdown voltage would be infinite. Just like the ultraviolet catastrophe, where there is a limit to infinity, there is a limit to nothing.
To espouse that things are different in the vacuum of space by creating mythical situations that cannot be tested or to put forth to support a flawed theory is a form of abuse by charlatans.
Light / Energy
Bamboozle: The speed of light is a constant
C² as a Universal Constant: By using c2 in his E=mc2 equation, Einstein emphasized that the energy associated with mass (rest energy) can be vast, reflecting how a small amount of mass can be converted into a large amount of energy. While this has profound implications for both nuclear physics and our understanding of energy conservation, defines the constant speed of light, yet it’s a notion has never been truly measured. It is deemed impossible to assess. Einstein ever described a mechanism that proved it or even vague showed how it might work. Even Einstein realized the limitations of his postulates using this.
Recent observations suggest variations influenced by the medium’s impedance. The speed of electromagnetic (EM) energy, or light, is dictated by μ0 and ε0. Altering these in Maxwell’s calculation (c=1/√μ0ε0) implies constant parameters. Hints at frequency-dependent changes, like prism-induced shifts in visible light, challenge the conventional perspective. Insights into force propagation, electron repulsion, and magnetic fields reshape our understanding. The speed of EM energy, tied to charge displacement, unravels nuances shaping its behavior.
Some one way measurements show a constant speed of light, but Pound-Rebka unveils a changing reality. This doesn’t champion general relativity; it shows the speed of light is subject to gravity, opening doors to new possibilities.
The characteristics of ε0 and μ0 are shown by Maxwell to regulate the speed of light, just like a speed limit. The same characteristics are present at both ends of the speed test, as mentioned previously. Engineers tune electronic circuits by changing the speed of energy by changing ε0 or μ0. These govern the speed of energy through air, wires, coaxial cable, and circuits. Why not space? The slightest change in either will show up as a change in the speed of the signal or velocity factor. Maxwell showed this as c=√μ0ε0. At the time of the introduction of the previous theory, components to measure or adjust these characteristics were not widely available. As it turns out, not one scientific proof shows the speed of light is constant.
Bamboozle: The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers.
Reconsidering, it could be the speed of energy within a controlled medium, akin to a school speed zone. Energy outside this zone behaves differently, influenced by acceleration or deceleration—gravity’s force.
Space, initially thought empty, might house a medium influencing energy propagation. Permittivity ε0 and permeability μ0 might hold the key, their roles in magnetic fields and charge storage revealing a new perspective. Observers in a different ε0μ0 frame will see energy at speed dictated by the impedance at their point within that frame.
Bamboozle: The speed of light is a universal speed limit
Maxwell’s insight on ε0 and μ0 as regulators of speed challenges the constant-speed narrative. Engineers tune circuits using these, why not space? Not one scientific proof confirms constant light speed.
Maxwell’s insight on ε0 and μ0 as regulators of speed challenges the constant-speed narrative. Engineers tune circuits using these, why not space? Not one scientific proof confirms constant light speed.
Charge, a force without temporal constraints, suggests instantaneous effects. Elevations and atmospheric factors influencing speed measurements hint at a nuanced speed of light.
The atmosphere affects observations, mirages, and astronomical measurements. Laboratory precision may not translate to open space, demanding a nuanced view of fundamental constants.
While it is likely that at some point, the speed of energy may reach a limit where it may appear constant, it is difficult to see how, in any reasonable view of space, it is throughout the entirety of space. Another issue is that using math, it can be shown that the speed of energy can be made to go faster, even though it is not yet proven that these numbers can exist in the physical world. So much for math.
The QA Theory opens the door to a dynamic understanding of energy, challenging established norms and inviting exploration into the nuanced nature of light.
Space
Bamboozle: There is nothing in space that enables or affects the propagation of energy (light).
Nearly 2500 years ago, Aristotle proposed aether as the fifth element that resided in space as the medium through which light traveled.
Albert Einstein initially considered the possibility of an aether but later abandoned the idea. He believed that aether could be a medium supporting the propagation of electromagnetic waves, but he found no experimental evidence for its existence. In his early work on special relativity, Einstein assumed that aether existed but argued that it was undetectable and had no absolute motion. He also postulated that the speed of light in a vacuum was constant for all observers, regardless of their motion.
The idea that there is nothing in space “that enables or affects the propagation of energy (light)” is challenged by Faraday’s discovery that magnetic fields can influence the polarization of light. Magnetic fields are indeed present in space, as evidenced by solar flares, which are giant loops of magnetic current.
Einstein’s theory of general relativity, published in 1915, does not require the existence of an aether. In fact, general relativity is incompatible with the concept of an aether.
While the aether concept was discarded because it did not fit the idea of space as an empty vacuum, the existence of a medium, whether associated with space or energy, is significant. Physicists recognize two properties of space that affect the propagation of energy: permittivity (ε0) and permeability (μ0). These properties allow space to hold a magnetic field (flux) and charge, respectively.
The notion that “space is empty” is contradicted by the very physicist who proposed E=mc². He argued that “the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers,” which counters the observation of redshift. The interpretation of redshift as being due to the velocity of the emitting object contradicts the postulate that the speed of light is invariant.
Understanding Planck’s constant is crucial here, as it relates the energy of a photon to its frequency (E=hf). This implies that the energy of photons, regardless of their wavelength, is quantized (i.e., the energy in each photon is equal regardless of their wavelength.)
Time
Bamboozle: Time is a variable
To describe a method of warping space-time to conform to his theory of general relativity to explain “gravity”, Einstein proposed using time as a variable. His idea was that mass warped time to bend space. He used “mind experiments” to validate the notion that time can behave differently when measured while in motion.
There are several noteworthy issues with this line of reasoning. Firstly, it’s essential to acknowledge that time is a human-made construct. Much like meters or miles, it serves as a standardized unit for measuring events, scheduling activities, and quantifying productivity. Ironically, the idea of a unified time was to coordinate human activity after it undergoes motion, such as long train rides. In the absence of human intelligence, the concept of time loses its significance.
It is important to remember that time is not just a physical quantity. It is also a social construct, and it is one that has had a profound impact on our lives. Time has been essential for our development as a species. It has allowed us to coordinate our activities, to share a common understanding of the world, and to make progress in science, technology, and culture. Further, there is no proof that time is a variable.
The only reason time is considered a variable is if we let it. If time is a variable, what are the constants it is based on, and what is the equation that relates it to mass?
There is no single natural clock in the universe. The passage of “universal” frequency standard would be affected by a number of factors, including the gravitational pull of other objects, the expansion of the universe, and even the quantum nature of reality. As a result, it is unlikely that we will ever be able to find a single, unified timekeeping mechanism that applies to the entire universe.
Further, there is not one scientific instrument that changes the speed of time as a functional adjustment.
Bamboozle: Atomic time is perfect time
Atomic clocks are based on a reference to the impedance of space. Their timing will change as the impedance of the space they are in changes. Further, their references are affected by their orientation to the contours of Z0. This is why they are shielded from both the electromagnetic and electrostatic effects of the environment they are in. Atomic clocks are, in fact, a good measuring device for the impedance of space. As such, they prove the CA concept and debunk the idea of relativity with a little thought!
Gravity
Bamboozle: Gravity is a force
In some interpretations of physics, gravity is one of the four fundamental forces—an attraction between all things that have mass. As a force, gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental interactions, approximately 10³⁸ times weaker than the strong interaction, 10³⁶ times weaker than the electromagnetic force, and 10²⁹ times weaker than the weak interaction.
Einstein’s general relativity recasts gravity as not the result of an attractive force but acceleration. In his theory, gravity is due to a curvature of space due to the bending of time by the mass. This is actually due to the changing of the value of, or speed, of time over distance. While his intuition was outstanding, it may be that he chose the wrong variable for this transform, as the speed of energy could be used if energy is the basis for gravity instead of mass.
Bamboozle: Gravity is related to mass
It has been accepted gravity is due to mass since Newton’s gravitational equation related the force between masses as a function of the inverse square of the distance between them. This, even after Galileo showed that acceleration was independent of the mass of an object when he dropped his balls (?) from the leaning tower.
Using Maxwell’s c2=1/μ0ε0, Einstein’s e=mc2 becomes e=m/μ0ε0, revealing another possible mechanism. In coming up with his “Relativity”, Einstein said “he stood on the shoulders of Maxwell,” 1/μ0ε0 could be a clue. The juxtaposition of mass and energy was only theoretical up to this time.
For this discussion, mass will be ignored as part of the cause of gravity but rather as an effect of it.
Bamboozle: The center of mass is the center of attraction
Making the center of mass the same as the center of attraction is an approximation for planets where the mass density is greater at the center. In actuality, the center of attraction is always closer than the center of gravity due to the inverse square law. Pictures show comet Levi Shoemaker breaking into pieces before impacting Jupiter, clearly showing the “attraction” was not at the center of the comet. Here on earth, mapping satellites show gravity is variable on the surface of the earth. If the attraction pole is single in the center, this would not be the case. The idea that a “force of gravity” is concentrated at the center is shown to be false.
Perhaps one of the reasons Newton was motivated to invent calculus was to simplify his “Law of Universal Gravitation” from a complex tensor problem to a single vector solution with spherically symmetric massive bodies like planets and stars. Further, a single vector solution must, by definition, involve a singularity.
This myth was finally put to rest in the Mid 70’s when NASA found they could use “Gravity Gradient attitude stabilization on their LDEF experimental satellites s a way of conserving fuel with this passive “vertical in orbit” test bed designed to be in orbit for a year or so.
Bamboozle: General relativity is the final answer to the understanding of gravity
Any theory that cannot be explained by using the symbols that man has already established is not based on the real world. If their mechanism for action cannot be expressed in symbols already in existence, it is probable they are incorrect or unable to express themselves.
Altering “human” defined constants such as time to make a theory mathematically correct is a sign something is not understood. Adjustments to other constants used with the relative time theory are just as plausible.
Further, show one rocket scientist who has used the gravitational equation for general relativity to calculate a trajectory!
Universe
Bamboozle: The Big Bang Is The Origination of the universe
A noble lie is a myth or untruth, often but not invariably of a religious nature, knowingly propagated by an elite to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda. The noble lie is a concept originated by Plato, as described in The Republic.
Msgr Georges Lemaitre’s Big Bang extrapolated expansion back in time to find the origin of the universe. It predicted a beginning of the universe at a time about 13.7 billion years ago. While widely accepted, some discrepancies are noted in this scenario. These are singularities and an anomalous bump in the rate of expansion.
One perspective aligns with the notion that the principles governing the universe, including the laws of physics, remain consistent across time and space. From this viewpoint, the Big Bang represents a unique manifestation of these universal laws, initiating the expansion and evolution of the cosmos as we know it. The singularity at the heart of the Big Bang may be seen as a point where these laws were fully operational, giving rise to the subsequent unfolding of cosmic phenomena.
The concept of the Big Bang, in the context of the “law of universality,” poses intriguing philosophical inquiries. The law of universality suggests that fundamental principles governing the universe apply uniformly across all spatial scales. In this light, the Big Bang theory, which posits a singular event marking the origin of the universe, raises questions about the universality of physical laws and the nature of cosmic evolution.
Likewise, The Big Bang, fails the “law of universality,” across all temporal scales. In this light, the Big Bang theory, as now understood requires different laws to be applied across the span of time. This is a double failure for the the Big Bang which in this lights turns out to be a Big Bamboozle.
“While the Big Bang is one way to imagine a singularity it is more likely to be a way to multiply by zero.” – Rod Mack
Bamboozle: The age of the universe is 13.7 billion years old
Based solely on the redshift seen using Hubble’s findings, The universe is estimated to be 13.7 billion years old, notwithstanding the observations of objects made earlier, specifically the Methuselah star, which is measured at 14.5 million years according to its redshift.
Then there was JWST which proves this impossible based on current theory. Oops…
Bamboozle: The universe is expanding
Doppler shifts observed in frequencies of star light have been interpreted to show the universe is expanding. There is no alternate explanation accepted for the Doppler shift observed. Based on this, the information age and size of the universe are a recent event. There is some question on viability of this based on the following alternatives:
1. Expansion of the universe based on a singularity at the beginning is non-linear.
2. The early expansion of the universe could have stretched the light waves that we are seeing.
3. Entropy from bending as light travels through variations in the admittance of space (Y0) could also be a cause.
Based on recent telescopic data from space, the more plausible explanation is number 3. Entropy is caused by gravitational bending. There is NO proof that Doppler is the only reason for the shifts in frequencies of light we see from the heavens. There is only hope that “it may be” in order to confirm a perception to support a religious belief. Lastly, there is the problem of colliding galaxies if the universe is expanding. It is a far stretch to believe…
Bamboozle: Space-Time is the foundation of gravity
A simple logical exercise:
1. Space has no action.
2. Time only measures action.
3. Energy has the gradients that create action.
4. Gravity represents action.
5. Gravity represents a gradient.
6. Space-time cannot be used to create a gradient or the action required by gravity by itself.
Therefore: GR cannot by itself be the foundation for gravity.
Q. E. D.
Quantum
Bamboozle: The Planck Energy Quanta
Planck’s Constant as the Maximum EM Frequency Limit
Planck’s primary contribution was to demonstrate that there is a limit on the smallest wavelength of electromagnetic radiation that can be propagated, detected, or converted to work energy. He introduced the concept of energy quantization through his constant ℎ, establishing that at high frequencies, the energy emitted or absorbed by blackbody radiation correlates with frequency in a way that suggests discrete energy changes. However, this does not inherently imply that energy exists in discrete multiples or clumps; rather, it indicates a fundamental limit on the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation that can be observed or utilized.
Planck’s work effectively demonstrated that there is a maximum frequency at which electromagnetic energy can be emitted or detected. This establishes a boundary condition for electromagnetic radiation, which is directly related to the characteristics of the oscillating charges that produce the radiation.
While Planck’s work established a limit to the frequency of electromagnetic radiation, it did not suggest or prove the existence of quantization in terms of discrete energy packets (quanta) of electromagnetic radiation.
His findings indicate that there are fundamental limits to how energy can propagate, but they do not directly dictate the structural nature of energy within atoms or molecules.
Particles vs. Waves
Bamboozle: The Einstein Bohr dichotomy
The Einstein-Bohr dichotomy refers to the philosophical and conceptual debate between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr regarding the nature of quantum mechanics. This debate primarily took place during the early and mid-20th century. Einstein, a pioneer in the development of quantum theory, was uneasy with its probabilistic and indeterministic nature, famously stating that “God does not play dice with the universe.” He sought a deterministic explanation for quantum phenomena and was critical of the inherent uncertainty introduced by quantum mechanics.
Niels Bohr, on the other hand, was one of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics and argued for a statistical and probabilistic interpretation of the theory. He believed that the fundamental nature of quantum entities, such as particles, was inherently uncertain and could only be described in terms of probabilities.
The Einstein-Bohr debates often revolved around the concept of “entanglement,” where particles become correlated in ways that defy classical intuition. Einstein famously referred to entanglement as “spooky action at a distance.”
In 1964, physicist John Bell formulated a set of inequalities, known as Bell’s inequalities, which could be tested experimentally to determine whether quantum correlations were compatible with local realism—a worldview where physical properties exist independently of observation and have definite values before being measured. In 1975, John Clauser conducted experiments that tested Bell’s inequalities and found results consistent with quantum predictions, challenging the possibility of local hidden variables.
Clauser’s experiments, along with subsequent research, supported the predictions of quantum mechanics and demonstrated the violation of Bell’s inequalities. This violation implied that the quantum world does not adhere to local realism, providing experimental evidence in favor of Bohr’s probabilistic interpretation over Einstein’s deterministic preferences. The findings highlighted the profound and non-intuitive nature of quantum entanglement, resolving the Einstein-Bohr dichotomy in favor of the probabilistic framework of quantum mechanics.
Bamboozle: The photon is a elementary particle
Elementary particles are the smallest known particles of matter, i.e., they are thought to be fundamental, meaning that they are not made up of any smaller particles.
Photons. as particles, have no mass and travel at the speed of light in a vacuum. They also have wave-particle duality, meaning that they can behave like both waves and particles. However, there is some evidence to suggest that photons are not elementary particles, but rather composite particles made up of smaller particles. Here are some specific arguments against the idea that the photon is an elementary particle:
To be a carrier of EM energy means a gradient, which means a minimum of two parts. This means there is something smaller that makes up photons. This means they are not fundamental.
Photons can be created and destroyed in particle reactions. This means that they are not truly fundamental particles.
Photons are of various sizes, depending on their energy wavelength. Photons of different wavelengths imply different energies, however, using E=hf one can learn that every wave regardless of its frequency contains an identical amount of energy, just that it is spread out over different periods of time, also particles in the standard model have fixed and measurable energies.
The QA Theory model describes the elementary building block of the universe as electromagnetic dipole made up of an electron and an anti-electron. These together may define a Photon but the elementary parts are the charges that make up the photon.
Bamboozle: The Higgs boson is the mechanism of gravity
The Higgs boson was “discovered” in 2012 by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at the LHC. The experiments found a new particle that had the apparent properties of the Higgs boson, including a mass of around 125 GeV/c². The Higgs boson is claimed to be “A fundamental particle that gives other particles their mass.” Its discovery confirmed the existence of the Higgs field, a field of energy that permeates the universe.
QA offers a more measurable method of “bestowing mass to energy” using previously known characteristics of the ability of time to admit energy into the μ0 and ε0 fields which have been long discovered, measured and used.
The discovery of the Higgs boson was a foregone conclusion after the expenditure of billions for the LCH and agreement of over 1,000 contributors. There was a possibility that the Higgs boson did not exist, or that it would have different properties than predicted. However, the careful analysis of the data from the ATLAS and CMS experiments showed that the new particle was consistent with the Higgs boson.
While the discovery of the Higgs boson was a major triumph for particle physics, confirming the Standard Model of particle physics, which is the currently most successful theory of fundamental particles and their interactions. The discovery also opened up new possibilities for research into the nature of mass and gravity.
With this new and exciting opportunity to spend more and more money to study less and less, ever more expensive experiments and equipment are associated with the highest costs for finding the smallest particles ever found. It becomes clear that more money can lead to the discovery of smaller particles, ultimately reaching a point where we can spend all of our money and find nothing. This is reminiscent of bamboozle #1, which shows the consequences of money being involved. $5.6 Billion U.S. buys a lot of confirmation bias – especially when the whole concept was a crock of academic “mindless confusion” designed to fleece governments and the rich.― Rod Mack
Science
Bamboozle: The quantum effect
Quantum physics is a branch of physics that studies the behavior of matter at the atomic and subatomic level. It is a very complex and challenging subject, and even physicists don’t fully understand how quantum physics works.
Despite this, the term “quantum effect” is often used to explain things that we don’t understand, even if they are not related to quantum physics at all. For example, someone might say that the “quantum effect” is responsible for their good luck on a test, or for their ability to find a parking spot in a crowded city.
In some cases, the term “quantum effect” is used to deliberately deceive people. For example, some scammers might sell products that claim to use “quantum technology” to improve health or performance. These products are usually nothing more than scams, and they have no basis in science.
Quantum mechanics is just a way to explain why things don’t always make sense. ― Rod Mack
We should not be afraid to question the status quo and to challenge conventional wisdom. We should also be careful about accepting claims that seem too good to be true, especially if they involve the “quantum effect.”
Bamboozle: Scientific method is foolproof
The current scientific system is set up in a way that makes it difficult for new ideas to challenge the status quo. For example, the peer-review process often gives preferential treatment to papers that support established theories, and the funding system is biased towards certain types of research, such as basic research on established theories. As a result, the system is more likely to produce incremental progress rather than revolutionary breakthroughs.
“One does not get a Nobel prize by proving someone wrong.” ― Gary Taubes
This is the antithesis of science!
“The greater the award or the greater number of people involved, the greater the need to be skeptical.” ― Bernard Baruch
Bamboozle: Science is blind to money
It’s crucial to acknowledge that science, like any human endeavor, is susceptible to biases and motivations like the desire for fame, prestige, and financial gain. They maintain the everlasting thread of continued exploration of the unknowable under the veil of “scientific method” in a perpetual exploration of the smaller, to the point of nothingness, with the need for the larger, to the point of reaching infinity of both size and expenditure, to maintain the role of scientists who only speak to, or tolerate, each other. The allure of funding and financial interests clouds the pursuit of objective knowledge. Recognizing this reality, we must continue to uphold the principles of intellectual honesty and integrity. Between the ego, money exclusivity, job dependency, and self-belief of demigods, it becomes difficult for the truth to escape the unreality of the worlds they have created.
“The history of humankind is one hoax after another to explain things they did not understand. There has never been a time in history when multiple people espoused multiple observations with theories that turned out to be hoaxes. An example is the recent hoax about people finding skeletons with giant bones. If you went by the number of people who say they saw them or the number of reports and articles supporting them, you would say they were true. None were true.” – Scott Adams
This same approach applies to scientific theory. How different is the giant bone story from the curvature of space-time to explain something we didn’t understand? Just like the collective belief in the existence of giant skeletons turned out to be a hoax, we must dare to question prevailing scientific theories and acknowledge the potential limitations within established knowledge. The the importance of skepticism and critical thinking in science cannot be dismissed.
The educated class is the most easily manipulated. Hypnotists and magicians have known this forever. It is easier to fool a scientist than an average person. This vulnerability stems from their deep intellectual investment in their theories, akin to holding a stock for emotional reasons. When a scientist becomes deeply committed to a particular idea or framework, it can be challenging to remain open to alternative perspectives. They may become trapped by their discipline, making it harder to see potential flaws or biases in their theories.
The idea that mathematical models represent truth is simplistic. Most models are designed for persuasion, not prediction. The very idea that we have had flawed models for over 100 years with thousands of band-aid explanations is a tribute to the idea that academics make money using flawed models. Each new endeavor results in spending more and more on smaller and smaller vestiges of science, reaching a point where we can spend everything on nothing. With CA, the veil has been lifted, and this draining of science has been stopped.
Science is about the search for reality, but when it is supported by outside interests, it may be biased in their favor. This may result in data selection bias, the omission of unfavorable findings, or even the falsification of findings by scientists. Peer review plays a crucial function in preserving the objectivity of scientific investigation. Science that is supported by outside parties or carried out to win awards is not impartial and is not true science. It is the responsibility of scientists to be transparent about their funding sources and their potential conflicts of interest. As long as they are not only available to a “selected” group of academics, the potential advantages of open science and public funding for research are desired goals. It is important to support scientists who are willing to challenge the status quo and speak truth to power. Science is corrupted when it is purchased and sold.
“If you think money cannot convince 98% of people to do anything, have you met money?” – Scott Adams
“Why would a scientist lie to you – for money” – Scott Adams
Think of the billions of dollars that have been spent on academia teaching convoluted subjects to those who want to believe they are smarter than the rest by having costly knowledge. Add to this the billions of dollars spent on those machines, studies, and experiments that back up these ideas. Money breeds criminals who commit fraud, which leads to corruption.
“If there is a lot of money involved the results are probably fake, like the search for the Higgs boson!” ― Rod Mack
A Way To Clarity
If time is a constant and the speed of energy is variable, the proofs of General Relativity remain but the universe looks much different. For example, gravity would not be a curvature of spacetime, but rather a force caused by the acceleration of energy. This would have implications for our understanding of black holes, dark matter, and other cosmic phenomena.
Remember, most of the early physicists did not have a laboratory, or formal education on the subject of energy or ever used it in any form other than an observer. For example, Einstein’s general theory of relativity predicts that gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime. However, there is no direct experimental evidence to confirm this prediction. Likewise there is no real way to prove the speed of light is a constant. The best way to test a theory is to see if it can be verified by experiment.
When you see several models predicting the future, the further into the future they predict the fewer of them there are few survivors that have predicted correctly. Likewise, when you see a theory that is constantly being updated or patched to reflect new data, you can be sure it was not correct in the first place. This is the essence of a scientific scam. Remember, anybody can tweak an old model to say anything. If the subject that is tweaked is not understood or hidden behind the mask of convoluted jargon or mathematics, all the better.
This is their fault, not that of the observer. It is the observers’ fault if this is not questioned. He deserves to be fooled!
“Avoid group think at all cost!”– Bernard Baruke