The Heretic’s Guide

 Sierpinski_tetrahedron.jpg

to  Reality

https://www.facebook.com/superrelativity/

The Grimerica Show ep#211  watch   download

The Den of Lore ep#52   watch   download

By Craig Flowers

craigflowers13@gmail.com

If you have Google Docs, here’s a link that’s in a slightly easier format to read: The Heretic's Guide to Reality (original)

They say the simplest answer is often the best. What if there is an answer so simple it ties up every loose end there is, with one question? Space and time are relative, and matter and energy are interchangeable. Matter and energy both essentially ride on spacetime. Matter behaves like unspace, and time behaves like unenergy. Has anyone ever wondered if all four are equally relative?

Their characteristics are perfectly predictable if they’re equally relative. Of course time and energy are invisible, intangible. Because matter and space are three dimensional and tangible, but likewise in inverted ways of each other. All inversions of each other. Matter is met, projectile, just like energy even though matter is defined by barriers and energy is defined by lack of stricture. Likewise, space and time are fallen through (and pass), rather than fallen upon (and impact), but once again in inverted ways of each other: time intangible while space contains every possible tangent. All inversions; all relative. So we can predict that, if outside matter or energy is required to move MATTER within spacetime, then it must take outside matter or energy in order to confine ENERGY within spacetime. Inversions.

This is the first three chapters of the (currently) stalled book. It starts left brained, literal, analytical, and works its way through esoteric and into right brained, correlative, matriarchal, and will change your life forever if you read to the end without giving up. No math or numbers, it’s something you CAN read and understand, even if there are a lot of big words in the first paragraphs (which are written specifically in order to gradually introduce the western materialist reductionist skeptic to new thinking). This seemed like the most important information possible ever, so I put it out there free for everyone to learn and share.


Chapter 1: Physics Escapes; Leaks From Own Box

The Holy Grail of physics is this “force carrier” of theirs, very complicated stuff that I assert for reasons which will soon become clear, shouldn’t be complicated. Thus it’s as good a starting place as any for explaining the theory (though its conception is another story), to replace the search for a force carrier, with a universe that doesn’t call for one. The simpler the better, in keeping with nature’s modus operandi. The more ambitious the better too. I can honestly say I can’t imagine any other possible purported “theory of everything” being either simpler or wider in scope -- which is in its own right a modicum of substantiation. It may not seem simple on its face, but after all it IS a theory of absolutely everything, and it does comply with the unspoken “one-inch-long formula” rule, being E=ST/M. Not to mention there are no numbers or math to be done.

The single most often cited corroboration in reference to if someone were to happen to write such a thing as a “unified field theory,” is to somehow reconcile quantum physics with relativistic physics, and this unassuming formula does that. It does everything. From explaining superposition, to making an infinite multiverse inevitable, doing so in terms so simple it would seem far too good to be true if only it didn’t roundly answer every question one might pose to it. It even makes that pernicious old bug “gravity” disappear rather unspectacularly. This theory goes so far as to get rid of the need to “fine tune” the universe and just does the fine tuning for us.

I guess it’s not so much a theory as an interpretation. It’s not meant to do calculations. We have a century’s worth of those. Einstein began Relativity with an insight. A hundred years of calculations, and people are still trying to prove him wrong. But Relativity was in its conceptual infancy. Now it’s time we take that original concept, and that century of calculations and observations, and we rethink the whole thing.

The need for a force carrier can be eliminated if one takes the relativity of space to its logical conclusion. In fact I don’t remember Einstein originally calling for a force carrier; I think it’s just a way to cope with anomalies in calculations because of the scalar conceptual schism derived by the current paradigm. We have measured even recently the bending of light around a massive object. During a solar eclipse, to use the same example Einstein used to prove space bends, stars that are actually situated behind the sun from our point of view are visible along the edges instead of obscured. This effect comes from looking through a cross section of space whose flow of time is warped by proximity to mass. In other words the closer something is to something else, the more that the space itself that they are taking up and the space in between them, warps. That’s why a warp engine is called a warp engine. Warping space with the simple application of energy to effectively “surf” gravitational waves. People’s eyes glaze right over. Too zany, too complicated, too seemingly erratic. Surely there’s not a pattern there to grab hold of and understand. Right?

Except maybe space itself isn’t bending at all, or at least maybe that isn’t the most intuitive way to frame it. It’s the bending of TIME in the space surrounding a mass -- an altogether different interpretation of the same measurement. But a thoroughly valid interpretation and observable effect it is as well, a perception that is seemingly unaccounted for in all but the largest scales such as an event horizon. In fact it’s time, not space or mass, that we tend to ponder on as a variable when thinking of the application of huge energies or huge scales, even though time is precisely the variable we leave out of the metric system. Just a new approach to old observations, and a shockingly illuminating one at that. It would be a false dilemma to presume that either space or time is bending without the other, so while it may be effectively true to say space bends, that is only one way to picture it and not the most illuminating for our purposes at the moment. An impediment in fact, but I should be clear that there is nothing invalid about that perspective, just that for a century we have failed to account for inversion of perspective, of which relativity is a function. The rate of change in a space, or the time it takes to traverse a constant space, is an inverted way of seeing spacetime that gives you conceivable lines of force, or lengths of time, or duration units with a constant time but variable length, to draw upon which paints a far clearer picture in the mind. Now if only I can express myself coherently. First I’ll try a few different approaches to the same “time, not space, doing the bending” perspective, as it does seem to illuminate the universe to consider perspective in that regard.

I saw a physicist describing in a lecture online years ago, what happens from the differing perspectives, in terms of time, upon entering a black hole. One does “spaghettify,” to use the technical term, however the traveler is not destroyed by being stretched but rather the space the traveler is in is what distorts, leaving one unaffected except from the perspective of an observer outside the black hole. The observer notes that the traveler seems to slow and pause, stuck, their information smeared around the edge of the black hole, but from the traveler’s perspective, the observer’s time flashes by and the outside universe shrinks away (Hmm, “shrinks away” sounds familiar; keep that in mind for later). Just one example, if an exotic one, of time traveling at differing speeds in two nearby spaces due to energy. But does it make sense? It is well established, though not relatively well known, that with increased velocity, we increase in mass as we stretch wider and taller while flattening out. It’s called “length contraction.” Does that make any sense without some kind of basic, logical mechanism behind it? Nope, never has, and that is why physics is stuck, not to mention inaccessible. The point is, this timewarp effect takes place on the small scale too. One might say the space a mass displaces bends outward, sort of just gets out of the way by compressing, around that mass. Even proton sized masses. But time does this too, and on large scales it’s referred to as “time dilation,” but I don’t think it has a name for the small scale. One moving atom passing by one stationary atom at a crossing distance of one atom away takes longer to get one atom in distance, than one moving atom passing by one stationary atom at a crossing distance of two atoms away takes to get one atom in distance. Is that gravity, or is it space bending, or is it time expanding and contracting? It’s all and none. It’s perspective inversion. The result of four-way, equilateral relativity. Manifest yet illusion too. A false dilemma. Zero sum. Holographic universe. Jesus did I say that out loud?

Like it or not, the paper “The Schwarzschild Proton,” by Nassim Haramein mathematically proves that every proton has the mass of the entire known universe. Take a minute to let that sink in, if you need to. Figures though, considering that apparently the calculations for a black hole involve four distinct infinities, which is a contradiction in terms to say the least, at least from the perspective of the old, disjointed paradigm. And his paper uses those new numbers to calculate the proton length accurately, which nobody has been able to do using conventional numbers. This is important not only because for the first time it means not having to fudge the numbers (the “cosmological constant” it’s called) in order to simply make physics work and then inventing PR terms for it such as this or that “force” or “dark” this and “dark” that, but also because it describes not just protons but the entire universe itself as following all the rules of a black hole, the implication being a holographic universe. Incidentally, what THIS paper is about to do, is to divide infinity in half, then divide those halves into half, and voila. There’s your forty-two.

Just because I mention Haramein’s theory many times, does not in any way mean the theory relies on Haramein’s being right or wrong on any level himself. I stand on my own.

The Planck length (not to be confused with the proton length) is the established minimum amount of space that allows relativistic phenomena, or the barrier between relativity and quantum effects. I think of it as the harmonic between time and space, the musical key of creation if you will. The single quantum boundary for time, and the single quantum boundary for space, harmonizing. *Gasps. The current paradigm doesn’t answer for the Planck length besides being the mysterious boundary at which the laws of physics change like some fickle arbitration. But we are going to define it as one quantum of time in space and/or one quantum of space in time. *Gasps. As we have already well demonstrated, energy effects the size of that boundary condition, or event horizon, but it is a definite and finite boundary. Why is there one set of rules for the large scale and another set for the small? Well, what if you can have one quantum of time just like you can have one quantum of matter? *Gasps. And they ARE relative, that much we know, so what is a single quantum of time? How would such a thing come about, and how can we conceive of it tangibly? What are the implications of thinking in terms that allow for such a thing as a “single quantum of time?” And just what would manifest from certain osmotic harmonies in conditions between, for instance, energy and space? Can that really be all a photon is? What energetic conditions then, do we need to recreate in order to quantify ONE space? Maybe then “one time” is the distance from a nucleus to an electron cloud, but only when one space is increased from its vacuum isostasy to one proton length by a proton mass because space quanta fluctuate depending on what sort of energy or mass they are bearing, which is why the notion hasn’t occurred to anyone yet. I don’t know. Is this way of thinking really so absurd? Different on its surface yes, but so attractively cohesive it begs consideration, and actually not at all counterintuitive or too altogether incomprehensible, as we’re about to find out.

Concerning quantum effects and where matter comes from, and why that means there is no such thing as gravity as we know it. These boundaries for quanta that the universe puts up, are very precise and impenetrable as only possibly explained by a discrete universe. Just like the boundary for the laws of physics between macro and micro scales, or like the spatial boundary created by matter, it is definite but plastic, prone to all kinds of energetic manipulation just like everything else. Relative. The one thing all matter, energy, space, and time have in common is their relativity to each other, a seemingly mysterious way of being separate but the same, so they must be simplified down to their commonalities by observing those manipulations, and then wholly reconceptualized from the ground up using everything we have learned since Einstein. When we observe a large enough space, the matter within it behaves the way we expect it to, but the seeming lack of logic behind the small scale mystifies us to this day unless we assume a discrete universe. Ergo if we are measuring WITHIN a single quantum of time simply by virtue of measuring such a small space, then logic dictates we should actually expect probabilistic behavior rather than predictable. Just the opposite of pictures of the entire known universe looking so static at such a scale of volume. That’s ALL there is to quantum effects: a single quantum of time. The imaginative leap of “time as discrete packets” is actually the next logical leap in the historical narrative. After all it was Max Planck who, before Einstein and Relativity, took a leap in logic, reportedly out of despair to come to a conclusion even if it meant back to square one with everything else in physics, to redefine light not just as a wave but a particle too, by for the first time imagining photons not as a flow but as discrete energy packets. But he refused to accept it as anything but a mathematical anomaly, and to this day even though Einstein normalized that much, nobody seems willing to seriously entertain the mathematical implications of a universe of four, count them FOUR, singularities for every black hole. This theory is the next logical leap because first Planck found that despite behaving like waves, energy is ALSO particles. Then Einstein confirmed that and proceeded to find that despite behaving like a constant, time is fluid, and despite behaving like a static space, space itself bends. And that the two are interchangeable. And that matter and energy too are interchangeable . . . as bizarre as this theory sounds, from a historical perspective I really don’t understand how this “discreet universe” stuff is anything but THE obvious nor why physicists wouldn’t want to accept such a thing as quantized time or space or for that matter ANY of the implications of this simple, supremely magical formula . . . E=ST/M

Where then does the mass in that single quantum of time come from? The more warped a piece of space is, the more warped time is within that space. And the more mass there is in a space, the more warped it all becomes. At some point, we have to try a thought experiment and have a look at an atom with this cross-warping in mind. What if an atom is just a vortex in bent space? The time within a space being displaced by energy, creating an impenetrable boundary around which time flows faster but inside which barely at all. Just like Bill Hicks said. The original point being the proton, the electron field being the possible future placement of the proton. The difference in the respective rates of time between the electron and proton is simply the energy trying to appear ahead of itself as spacetime effectively rips on that small scale with precisely the right energy. Guessing where it will be next. Potential energy. A warp field. If you don’t like the word “vortex,” think “standing wave” instead. But why wouldn’t the same “duality experienced from the middle,” or tryptic, force be behind the self similar actions at all scales? From the atom to the galaxy and everything in between, the same effect is at work. Finally an explanation for neutrons: fulcrums, tornados, eyes-of-hurricane, at the smallest scale. Imagine moving the fulcrum on the seesaw much closer to one end to compensate for a disproportionate pairing (because protons weigh far more than electrons), and you have the beginning picture of an atomic nucleus. ALL of this atomic picture is derived from the simple displacement of time via energy. The first prediction that such a way of thinking of atomic structure makes is that, because they are points of negative curvature of space and therefore can be constrained but not combined, we won’t exactly be able to look at an electron, or even pin it down or define it in any tangible way as anything other than slippery. That is all verified by observation. Down to the last detail. There is no other theory which predicts that; there CAN BE no other because there is no other way TO produce electrons WITH those exact traits, don’t make me laugh, not even remotely close, so as far as I’m concerned the case is closed with that argument alone, but let’s keep going and going and going, eh? The second prediction is neutron mass being just slightly more than the proton mass, which is verified. What are the chances? The third prediction is neutron death. Sure enough, it’s a little-known, real phenomenon that neutrons fizzle without their electron, in a predictable but slightly varying amount of time, approximately 900 seconds, just as one would predict from such a “whirpooling” mechanism. In fact after long deliberation I can not imagine ANY other way of explaining or otherwise duplicating the particular idiom of temporal variability exhibited by neutron death, and I see it as Superrelativity’s overall best predictive vindication because I don’t believe anyone else has ever predicted it before. It’s stabilizing like a fly-wheel, like a counterweight, but it’s also a probability cloud. An electron cloud is the potential next place the proton will be unless it stays still, and those two properties are why it costs a perfect inverted ratio of one quantum of time to traverse one quantum of space -- costs it in time energy. Because the deeper you go into a black hole the slower progress you appear to make, it costs 1 time/energy to move 1 matter/space. There’s your mass.

Electron energy, proton mass . . . Remember the example from earlier, of the space around the eclipsed sun showing starlight from behind the sun (hey wait a minute, what does that imply about our “view” of the visible universe?!)? It’s not light bending from gravity; it’s lensing via spacetime bending in proximity to matter energy. Not illusion. What happens near a mass like the sun to something heavy then, like not distant starlight but a hammer? The SPACE around the surface of the sun is bent to different degrees from the near side to the far of that hammer, literally manifesting the illusion of the hammer falling as reality. Real illusion but not illusion because it’s real. Real, fake illusion. Orbits are actually straight lines, just lines in warped time and through bent space. So it’s just as valid to consider that space itself, not just gravity, is also a real fake illusory force effect. There are so many ways to state it, and we should try to for the sake of conceptualization. Prisming is another way to think of it, like light through a prism the entry and exit points of a given “time” are different lengths at different altitudes, prisming, angular. The moon is going right by the planet. Gravity isn’t real. Hell, E=(ST)/M says that not even matter is real. Not as such anyway. Everything is just potential, diffracted four ways fractally at the largest scale by the simplest and most stable and efficient geometry in three dimensions, the inverse of the sphere, the inconspicuous tetrahedron. So, real or not, what manifests is what we perceive, so for the sake of clarity, we may be redefining gravity as an illusion, but it is a real illusion just not a force in and of itself anymore, so I’ll just keep calling it gravity. Viva la Pluto. Actually Pluto should be happy. To paraphrase from “The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou,” You may be team B, Pluto, but you’re team B leader. *edit apparently Pluto has been reinstated to its birthright in our sun’s caste system. Congratulations on the arbitrary honorific, Pluto.

It’s just the airfoil concept but with space instead of air. Matter of fact, it turns out the airfoil concept IS antigravity, but as applied to air not time. Or space. Whatever, same thing. I always found the explanation behind aerodynamic lift to be lacking in purveyance and never could grasp why air going by faster on one side would create lift in that direction. I thought about it a lot over the years, and I just couldn’t get it. Frustrating. Seemed counterintuitive if anything. But when thought of in terms of a sphere and at scale and in the “ether” as they used to call it, it takes on new logic such as the space at your feet being more turbulent (time going by faster) than at the space at your head, actually acting to effectively “pull” you toward the earth. Yet another way to think of it may be “time wind.” We know that if you put two identical atomic clocks next to each other with one foot altitude difference from the earth, they DO run at different times, the clock at your feet going faster than the clock at your head, just like this theory predicts and without the need for a force carrier. There’s your gravity.

So maybe “time wind” isn’t descriptive enough on its own. This is but one line of analogy, and maybe it’s not the best one, but the visualization is good. While it does invoke lateral differences in time flow relative to a mass sort of like differing wind speeds at differing distances from a planet’s surface, except more uniform and predictable, “time wind” nonetheless only vaguely implies the radial line of force, a kind of “opposite pressure” in space, if you will, that attracts one mass to another simply through those very changes of timeflow between altitudes. “Time wind” can be observed as “currents” between two masses. Like underwater currents, but in space itself. Currents of expansion and contraction of space itself. Because of differing rates of time. Almost like extremely weak wormholes connecting two bodies in space. Except not almost but literally just very subtle. The reason different sized objects fall at the same rate is the same reason there is equal atmospheric pressure on two different sized objects on the same planet.

So an electromagnetic current is electron clack-balls with whole atoms involved; a dielectric current is the same thing, the flow of negative curvature of space but without involving protons and the jolt of angular momentum they would entail. Likewise, yet inverse to electricity in that they are comprised by proton field not electron flow, the difference between magnetic field and gravity is either the involvement of electrons or not, respectively, in a field. It’s okay not to understand what I mean yet, you can come back later once you understand how the theory works better, and reread it all with your jaw in the floor. The proton mass is mostly displaced by the electron in the same way a superfast flywheel seemingly defies gravity, which is why despite having the entire mass of the known universe an atom is relatively lightweight, even though the electron is only “revolving around it” at about one percent the speed of light (at which the proton IS rotating, by the way). Having but one proton and one electron, the reason a hydrogen atom can have no neutron is the same as the notion of all motion in outer space being relative. So it’s kind of like when you really break it all down, inertia is all there is. Or, rather, charge. Expansion and contraction. Boy, how is it even POSSIBLE any other theory could EVER predict neutrons down to such obscure detail, I ask. Pieces just start falling together when something is true. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves, this is all stuff for the next chapter, and the next.

I haven’t contradicted any laws of physics yet or even said much of anything that’s not already well established. At least not that I know of. Just attempting to invert a few perspectives on old hat observations, all resulting from, or, from the inverted perspective of the reader, leading towards, one insight about a simple geometric relationship that works so well to tie everything in the universe together, that it insists upon itself. While the more indoctrinated might call this theory childlike, I submit that “childlike” might in this unique case be a singularly towering testament to the veracity of, literally, THE main idea. Does it seem like simple logic now, to see the suction that results from differing rates of change per altitude, as gravity? How much more efficient movement might be through thoroughly empty tracts of intergalactic space. There’s another simple prediction. That maybe it won’t take as long as it looks like it would to get through sufficiently empty space. A kind of negative energy. Another simple prediction is the planck length expanding if you decrease pressure. This shift in concept contradicts nothing observed or measured, while shattering the entire picture of the universe into a million pieces, and it’s just the first of many shifts in paradigm resulting from using new information to reexamine the fact that pulling on one variable, or aspect, of reality affects the other three aspects in predictable, logical, repeatable ways. We are going to use the same mechanism, that algebraically tetrahedral interaction dynamic between the four facets of reality, Energy=(Space*Time)/Matter, to drastically simplify and make sense of not just gravity (directionless, Newtonian-style space with time as its atmosphere) but everything else from electromagnetism (geometrically inconsistent likelihood across an electron shell resulting from certain nucleic arrangements, cumulative by its conforming nature like a little army of like atoms aligned) to consciousness (holographic point-of-view perspective fractal iterating from singular awareness which brings rise to a subjectively shared universe from multitudinous “world lines” to use the technical term).

So, if we have established concepts like time units crowding around a mass by contracting, and spacetime being divided by energy to create matter, then we are no longer thinking of the construct of “spacetime” by trying to envision three dimensions of space as a two dimensional fabric in three dimensions, depressed by a random wayward bowling ball. I find that analogy tragically misleading. Spacetime is not a two dimensional fabric in three dimensions. Spacetime is a three dimensional space in three dimensions, and time travels more slowly the farther away you get from matter/energy. The one thing we shouldn’t give up in a spatial analogy is an entire dimension. It’s more like a sponge than a fabric. A three-dimensional web. This simple mechanism gives us the so-called “four forces,” and imagining it as something else like a beach towel and bowling ball just takes away the very same dimensionality one is seeking to analog. Here’s the death knell for that analogy: if the bowling ball represents “down,” what does real down represent? Oh, so down represents down, okay so what does the bowling ball represent? Poor towel. What other things might change one’s perspective upon being reexamined through this new lens? Because the Scientific Method is absolutely not to be confused with the Scientific Establishment. The two couldn’t be more at odds, really. On that note, how about the dinosaurs, we’ll use the dinosaurs as an example. Even though I already mentioned “The Schwarzschild Proton,” which won the prestigious “paper of the year” award like ten years ago but which the scientific community has nonetheless yet to even begin to attempt to come to terms with in any regards. Not that I can blame them: without this formula, they don’t have the imaginative tools. Not only that, but the populous is finally kicking back against academic “authority.” Therefore I submit that it may be an argument FOR this theory, not against it, that it steps on so many “established” dinosaur toes.

I’m not coming to any conclusions about the following few questions in the following few paragraphs, just refusing to take any reference frame for granted. Gosh those things were big. Scientifically impossible big. The dinosaurs, I mean. How can we just brush that glaring problem under the rug? Actually we do it all the time on all manner of subject matter, by learning early and repeating often. I saw someone smart looking say on television once that if a T-Rex tried to turn while running, its neck would break. And how could the sauropods even walk at all or circulate blood to their heads?  Worse, to this day they continue to amend the “biggest dino ever” as they continually find new “biggests.” But wait, that was between sixty-five and two-hundred-fifty million years ago. Surely the planet has accreted some mass from outer space since then? I mean, even the rock that did them in had to weigh something. The sea floors across the world are only about as old as the dinosaurs, spanning the approximate coincidence of their earthly reign in fact. Moreover, I read something about a line of sauropods that gradually diminished in size over the entire reptilian reign. With a little less gravity, I can see the dinosaurs existing at their size. I am not inclined to believe the fossils were accidentally enlarged by Rick Moranis, so perhaps “Pangea” wasn’t so lopsided a planet after all. I would hate to see the violence of the seas and shores of the planet whose land stood in an island together on one side, especially with a big old moon like ours. Doesn’t sound like a situation conducive to biostasis, nor does it sound frankly like it’s physically possible, considering isostasy, to have a planet be one side land and one side water. Overchurned at the least. Apparently though, Tasmania did used to be a part of North America, and the puzzle pieces of the Pacific coasts fit together just as neatly as the Atlantic side does if one takes away the ocean floor. If, as they say, 100 metric tons of space dust enters our atmosphere every day, where does it go? Was the rate higher 200-million years ago? Of course. Accretion never stops. Accretion only halves, then halves again, so accretion was exponentially higher back then, actually. That accretion never stops, makes for an exponential bell curve in the rate of accretion going back that far in the past BY VIRTUE of the deceleration in decreasing of accumulation (remember that concept as well, that of exponential inversion when looking backward in time, for later it will neatly explain the Big Bang Itself). Planetary formation is a never ending process, and 200 million years is a very long time to accumulate debris from space. It’s four or five percent of the entire life of the earth! Nobody talks about this? Not even “growing earth” enthusiasts. The claim in the growing earth community is matter creation inside the earth via “pair production,” although I don’t speak to that. Accretion seems to me like a real obvious and simple thing to have overlooked, baffling even, especially as we keep learning more and more over and over how FULL this “empty space” really is. I am not disputing the existence of subsidence or plate tectonics. They are not mutually exclusive to accretion. 200 million years at the current daily calm rate is a few trillion tons (approximately a million times the great pyramid), and that’s not accounting for any daily increase compounding back into the past, nor is it accounting for larger objects, catastrophes or periods of bombardment the frequency and magnitude of which we continue to underestimate. We have the double-whack theory for the moon, but has anyone ever considered the “one whack, one miss” theory, that our moon may have already been a binary partner? Assuming it’s not artificial, that is. That snowballing of misconception from a bad paradigm is happening again, where one old, false conceptual presumption blocks our imagination. The problem becomes so huge we can’t even address it. My thinking is so alien I just hope others can adopt it at all, because the way it ties everything together is one step better than too good to be true. It’s too good to deny. But so very very different indeed. But once again I digress. Ask yourself this: if all the galaxies are flying apart from each other, how is our next door neighbor Andromeda galaxy also flying straight for The Milky Way? We see other galactic collisions besides that one too, in abundance, yet they still peddle us the pennies on a balloon analogy.

There’s another observation that I have a hard time with. The “expanding universe in acceleration” model. Turns out, the planet isn’t flat, just looks that way, and the universe isn’t accelerating, just looks that way. Nor is it expanding. It’s The Universe.

We already talked about the time winds lensing light around objects. How full of debris of all sizes, from a rogue hydrogen atom to a rogue planet to rogue black holes, is interstellar space? Intergalactic space? How much is out there that we are looking AROUND? Wouldn’t that distant light traveling as the dog runs instead of a straight line, create a misleading “redshift” as it’s termed? Moreover, wouldn’t all that debris everywhere bending all that light through all those unfathomable distances of space, serve to create an exponential curve on that misleading redshift which becomes more pronounced, MORE misleading, with more distance? Is the universe even expanding at all? Or would it be more accurate to say, turns out we can calculate the vastest distances secondarily with the use of redshift because of the mean interstellar debris index.  All this non luminous, rogue matter that permeates the universe, is there enough to explain dark matter? Is there another factor at work? This theory gives the concept, not the math. There is no need for math. Isn’t it funny how thinking in terms of geometry instead of math effectively gives one a whole extra dimension to work with irrational numbers and such which, just like trying to decipher the interference pattern on a hologram, both simplifies and clarifies. One might say geometry is the real language of the universe, as evidenced by cymatics, and math the cypher or something. The former analog, the latter digital. You don’t see a panther when you look at the interference pattern on a hologram. You see a panther when you look at the image the hologram produces. They couldn’t be more different from each other. One is nonsensical. It has to be, in order to contain an entire additional dimension of information. This is the same reason why explaining spacetime as a fabric is so detrimental to our understanding. As well as how it’s possible to have a theory of everything with no math.

I have to stop to make clear that, just like those unanswered questions, these individual explanations throughout the theory are my own hard-earned extrapolations from the formula, that my perspective and imagination are subjective, not to mention I have the benefit of no formal secondary education where they tell you what to think instead of how, which by the way doesn’t disqualify the theory (“appeal to accomplishment” red-herring logical fallacy) so any single given analogy or conclusion about an ancillary concept might be dead wrong but that my being wrong about this or that detail doesn’t by itself speak to any lack of validity in the formula or the concept but more to my own lack of initiation and indoctrination, and inadequate intelligence, imagination or insight to glean the correct particular answer the formula provides to the particular detail (the official terminology for this logical fallacy is “argument from fallacy,” a non sequitur form of formal fallacy). But when suddenly things like the casimir effect, photons, and anti gravity all start losing their air of mystery to the layman one after another like dominos so they no longer have to say “You lost me at casimir effectons, dudebro,” you have to go where it leads you. “That is not the accepted way to think of it,” is not a valid argument. I’m not sorry I’m not presenting this thing according to protocol; is protocol really too important to look beyond me and at the idea? I’ll go and learn legalese for twenty years just so I can present the book to the snobs who decide what we get to learn, how about that. Consensus can be wrong. Consensus can be downright blinding  Depending on who you are, I may or may not be about to preach to the choir, but there is no way to convey how difficult it has been to get anyone to simply look at this theory at all, just because of our attachment to endless, senseless protocols, and anyway to what end . . . Over the last twenty years the trend has, rightfully, been for people to increasingly no longer trust academic authority to have every answer, because of the snail’s pace of IDEOLOGICAL progress in the version of reality the scientific political community officially presents to the public and the children due to vested interests, careers, grants, corporate interests, and entire identities and lifelong works and self worth and pride and supposedly social order and most importantly, comforting and secure world views, and the control system ALL being at stake. Someone once said paradigmatic progress happens one funeral at a time, and while that may seem a morbid statement, it seems to be increasingly the case with the acceleration of scientific advancement in the face of increasing lifespan. We every single one of us dig trenches in belief for ourselves to stagnate in even while humanity makes technical progress. A true scientist will tell you we don’t really understand much of anything, but the public façade is completely contrary to that. It’s almost as if closed mindedness comes with age, because we become emotionally invested in our own personal narration of reality. And, I’m learning, due to sheer bewilderment at the increasing increasing. Humans are delusion machines. Even as we speak, so to speak, there is a whole narrative emerging of the Pleistocene mass extinction 12,800 years ago resulting from the Younger Dryas comet, and a second event 1200 years later called Meltwater Pulse 1B, where the sea level is estimated to have risen 400 feet and a majority of that in as little as two weeks; and of a previous incarnation of global civilization lost, all of which conform exactly to Plato’s explicit and detailed assertions, all of which the mainstream, not to mention the blasted schoolbooks, have yet to address, and likely never will, despite ten years’ accumulation of impact proxies and other evidence geological, anecdotal and circumstantial in abundance across the continent and around the world. The amount of money and effort spent on maintaining public opinion on the story that serves vested interests is unprecedented and malignant. An entire generation after the Sphinx was definitively dated geologically to that same period or probably far older, and archaeologists and egyptologists mistakenly think they simply can not afford to betray their two-century-old collective paradigm and by extension their dignity and careers by admitting the clear truth, citing baseless doctrine learned in acquiring their arts degree to deride empirical observations made by people with scientific degrees. Lest the whole thing SHATTER. Gobekli Tepe in Turkey, Gunung Padang in Indonesia, thousands of cities under the sea, and all the cyclopean walls across six continents (seven or I’ll eat my, hmm, my ear-and-nose-hair trimmer), most of which we couldn’t engineer today, all of which align across the globe in some grand scheme . . . this is but one aspect of contradiction to convention with which the information age provides us. It’s still just like the middle ages to this day. Those people didn’t really think the world was flat; it was just what the medieval equivalent of textbooks and news told them they ought to think, and while many people never saw through it there were plenty who looked at what happened to the moon in relation to the sun and understood. Heretics. Why tell us they thought that?The majority probably did, if I’m being cynical about modern people. The media lies to us on behalf of the corporations, the government is a sham on behalf of the corporations, the academic establishment and secondary education are wholly owned corporate subsidiaries, the public school system is a propaganda machine for the corporate fascist state which is itself just a front for a shadow government which are themselves in turn just a facade for a half-dozen CEOs, willful ignorance is universally sold as a patriotic virtue, everything is a scam or a racket, and on top of all that, modern exceptionalism combined with a left-brained, patriarchal, occidental frame of reference makes for a potent strain of confirmation bias and appeal to tradition to both constrain, even if one does attempt to reclaim, intellectual sovereignty from the version of reality the cancerous modern, competitive, capitalist, consumerist, endless growth- and momentum-based society markets to its vapid, vacant and vain consumers at life’s-every-turn. However if the internet can break our model of the scaffolding of civilization itself, perhaps our model of the essence of physics isn’t so bulletproof. But the rate at which people are becoming aware of ALL of this, gives me hope that even if nobody ever reads this book, at least it won’t have been due to premature dismissal over blind adherence to presentation protocol but rather to good, old-fashioned murican disinterest. The peer review process has been illegitimate for a VERY long time, not to mention being comprised solely of each and every one of the last people left in the world who, if the theory did someday win out, would ever bend over to accept it therefore nor would I be interested in their interest. This theory has no demographic, but I have to present it to those who can afford to accept it, in their own language not Latin or math or Greek. The hope, if the reader can bear slogging through it and maybe looking up a few words, is that if there’s enough conceptualization in the first chapter for the eureka, the theory will then persist to haunt the mind enough autonomously so the reader will continue reading regardless of any itching, burning or discomfort losing one’s illusions may cause in later chapters. It’s called cognitive dissonance, and it’s GOOD for you. Perspective IS the secret currency. Because this theory PROVES that nothing exists but experience. Literally. I’m sure to step on every toe there is at some point along the way. You saw the title. Even if we don’t want it to be at first and it takes some warming up to, matter IS spacetime divided by energy.

When they talk about the early universe, they say things like “all of space itself took up just one sugar cube of volume,” and it makes no sense to me. How can space change in size? In relation to what? Unspace? That would just be more space. In the very early universe, you can think of everything fitting inside a small space, OR you can think of nearly perfectly even distribution of protomatter and bound energy and crawling time flow throughout all of space. Germination. The first stages of diffraction as the Four Aspects begin to differentiate from each other. Space is still ALL of space, but now you have time moving at a crawl (long distance traversed between ticking seconds) and slowly gaining momentum (seen from the outside observer as an explosion!); energy having trouble discharging because “empty” space is as yet mostly indistinguishable from “full”; matter all but not yet existent; and precisely because of this near-perfectly even dispersion combined with little differentiation, space itself too so barely discernible as to seem a small thing when taken as a whole (This harkens back to the accretion stuff, and it makes me wonder if and how much gravity on a young planet is diluted by the density of matter in the general “empty space” surrounding that mass, bending our numbers even farther in favor of dinos on a tiny planet). Likewise, if the observations of the accelerating expansion of the universe DO turn out to be true then maybe those standing waves that look like angular momentum but are actually chiral vortex electron paths bent by time around protons, are shrinking. Standing waves losing amplitude. There’s your vortex. That would explain the apparent preservation of energy in the orbit of an electron, or strong nuclear force, and it’s certainly the only cogent “expanding universe” model I could ever understand. It might be an explanation for dark energy. It might also neatly explain away inflation (yet another PR term) as simply a particular emergence event in that initial holographic diffraction. Also, harkening back to gravity, suddenly those little-known, tiny fluctuations measured daily in local gravitational forces which have so baffled us for decades, can be explained simply as a self correction response to fluctuating directional influences in mass and time. Basically, astrology. Gravitational waves suddenly make sense. If a proton spins at the speed of light, as Haramein proved, then protons exist outside of time and therefore it is possible, very very possible though not necessarily likely, that THERE IS ONLY ONE PROTON. This has vast, promising implications concerning mortality itself, which we’ll get to in chapter 3. Now, if electrons are traveling at something like 1% the speed of light, and you have to have all the mass there is to travel the speed of light, then doesn’t it mean that we can use their speed to calculate their mass as the same ratio of around 1% of a proton, and vice versa calculate the speed using the mass? The Measurement “Problem” should have been called the Measurement Clue. Clue that it’s a black hole universe. Consider the matter of units of measurement, because people will say this whole theory, this whole formula, is circular thinking, not realizing everything already is circular. The metric system is just one big circle but without accounting for time because we don’t see changes in time in daily life at this scale, but measuring a mass as spacetime over energy is no different than measuring a kilogram as the mass of a cubic centimeter of water at the melting point of ice. Which does happen to be the definition for a kilogram. A certain weight is a certain volume of a certain material density at a certain temperature? The only constant in that equation is the element weighed, and any one of those three variables changes its material density anyway, so it’s already three variables out of a possible four, all related circularly, I just add THE FOURTH COORDINATE. If all things are relative, and everything has to have equal and opposite forces, and there is only one electron and one proton, and everything diffracts from singularity, is there any other answer besides a holographic universe? (Hint: no.)

What is the equal and opposite force responsible for this alleged diffractive genesis? Well, I could point to “dark flow” and leave it at that, but we’re here to take that “dark” out of the lexicon altogether, so think of it for now (this is Chapter 3 stuff) as a kind of momentum from the death of the last universe . . . a hologram needs a laser to work, an observer, so I submit that awareness itself is the primary bifurcation in a universe of dualities. Manifestation and awareness. Infinity divided by two. Simple point-of-view perspective, through the very medium of a holographic tetrahedral fractal tesseract set. A causal loop. “But where did it all come from? You can’t get something from nothing, someone must have created it.” Not someone; some What. Duality, remember? You can’t have “nothing” without “everything” in which for “nothing” to exist. Zero has no meaning without context and has no real value except as a placeholder, and it had to be invented independently of numbers just like infinity and just like oblivion. Likewise one can not have everything without including nothing, which is precisely HOW everything comes from nothing, as well as why it’s possible to interchange the four aspects. They define each other, everything and nothing. So I guess physical manifestation and point-of-view awareness, if that terminology is too esoteric, could be analogous to holograph with individualized points of origin or perspective, or in other words interference pattern and laser. Possibly the most bizarre implication of this theory is that the only thing that truly exists is perception. Fortunately, if you’re about to go into an existential meltdown, it turns out that all experience is real. There is no such thing as simulation, only experience. So there’s 42 again: four times in twain: oneness bifurcates into manifestation and awareness (1) and then manifestation bifurcates into spacetime and matter/energy (2), spacetime halves into space and time (3) and space expands and contracts (4) with charge, from which everything arises in turn. And here we are.

Infinity by definition must include “nothing.” Evocative of a simulation scenario by its simplicity alone. Then again, it’s the only way TO have the math and dynamic and fine tuning to fully incubate reality as we know it, so in actuality it doesn’t speak to simulation theory either favorably or otherwise. I just hope that, if it’s going to be unknowable as yet, simulation theory doesn’t become our next religious obstacle. People don’t seem to realize THIS is the ultimate video game, this is the ultimate movie, the ultimate heaven AND hell, THIS is where it’s AT, man.

So, now the collapsing of the wave function might be described using a combination of probabilistic behavior when working within a single quantum of time, and the point of origin, or laser effect, from the holographic principle. Like when they got the Stargate to work, if you’re a movie buff. Inverted perspective of: Origin (algebraic) As Consciousness. Was that so hard?

The universe as it is today, as seen from the scale of the whole of space? Even while variations in localized rates of time increase so that localized time-flows around massive bodies continue to tend toward acceleration and more “time” gets stuffed into space itself there, the empty space between said masses becomes emptier like smoke clearing giving energy room to play, even while mass accumulates -- all of these causing AND resulting from, each other. Is that any different a way to see Relativity, really? Effectively no, but the conceptual differences that these inversions of perspective create in our picture of the universe, will far exceed the sum of their parts. Maybe this picture of the universe as it exists right now, when compared to the picture of the early universe, the early diffraction of the four aspects of reality, will further help the reader to understand the formula and start to visualize this four-way dynamic, the logic behind the universe. Wouldn’t such a dynamic create a place for constructive interference, or harmonic sweet spot between the four aspects, from which to derive conceptual accessibility for the layperson to not just photons but color itself? Even if it’s not correct, people will want it to be for the categorical clarity it provides. The way it simplifies every formerly incomprehensible concept it touches, for example making simple sense of why the way energy moves through space is effectively an inversion of the way matter moves, literally the most basic algebraic concept arising from a closed, tetrahedral system dynamic. And the overall tetrahedral dynamic when compared alongside Haramein’s calculations about the vacuum and notions of nested space, it’s like peanut butter and chocolate. A small child could invent technologies given such a simple construct from which to summon literally anything and everything from within all possibility and imagination to potentially emerge. Or maybe someone will use it to make a seamless virtual reality. That would sure be a creative way to officially prove the theory.

Oh, and to clarify on the big bang, why again is time starting out slowly perceived from the outside as an explosion? A man in a rocket doing a million orbits at speed to travel forward in time. We call it “forward” in time because it feels like time sped up. And that is the experience of the traveler. But to those observing him, time for him all but stopped while he was up there. Anyway there’s your big bang. If we project backward in time keeping the ticking seconds as our constant, as in the observer perspective, of course we see an explosion, but the traveler perspective, as in the experience or memory of that early time, would involve experiencing very long distances in space between the ticking seconds, sort of like the fog clearing upon waking. Of course, that’s not accounting for how those particular conditions would change the other aspects for the traveler and therefore other changes in the experience, but it will do for the purpose of elucidation. The pattern begins to emerge that everything at all scales seems to be understandable through one simple and superlatively consoling mechanism. Empathy. Empathy: my time speeds up, your slows; matter is contained, energy uncontained; push on time and space pulls you; decelerating slowing of accretion, far smaller past earth than expected; nothing without something, something without nothing, on and on and on and on it always comes back to that aperture, that inversion of perspective: empathy. That IS the tryptic.

Has any other theory ever capably explained the big bang? Has any other concept ever explained mass? Defined time? Did Einstein ever say WHY? Did he say why space and time are relative? Did he say why matter and energy are interchangeable? All he did was insist that they are, never said why, which is the reason everyone is still testing him and testing him a century later. Is there an idea out there besides this one that says why the laws of physics exist at all? Has there ever been another formula that ever said why to any of these questions, let alone ALL of them? Well this formula is saying “why” now. Nothing else ever has because no other idea ever could. How could this NOT be the theory of everything? It’s going to be called “Superrelativity,” as in simply putting Relativity in a new dress (prefix super- denoting a quality of being above or beyond: superimpose; supercede), seeing as how the formula never contradicts any established laws of physics, rather upholds and even explains and verifies and relates them. For each law of physics to actually have a clear reason behind it, actually explains why there are laws of physics at all. And that to me is yet another invaluable corroboration, because it’s yet another world’s first.

By now I think we have not only reconciled quantum physics with relativity conceptually, if briefly, but also reconciled both of those with these new physics, the holographic universe. Three seemingly disparate pieces of a whole, four if you count this formula, although if you do count this formula, you must then account for it transforming our perception of those other three pieces of a puzzle into three of four working parts of a whole. From pieces into parts (wasn’t it Bohm who talked about pieces versus parts?), now we have a more complete picture of the universe to start with, one where all our observations might be made sense of, one with four complementary paradigms to draw upon, so is it possible to keep using this construct to conjure explanations for whatever holes we continue to poke in the theory? It does seem to beautifully provide simple and profound answers for just about anything. For instance there’s a “speed of light” written inherently into the very algebra of this tetrahedral relativity dynamic. Forget where matter comes from? Just state the formula. “Oh yeah that’s right, matter is space and time divided by energy.” Makes quick sense of my longer explanation about applying energy to displace the flow of time from within a space to the space around it blah blah blah. Fundamentally forget what space is? No problem. Space is matter and energy divided by time. Easy peasy. Does that not make perfect sense as a definition? Matter takes up space, so free the energy from that matter, and what is left but space which takes time to cross. “How could a so-called ‘theory of everything’ possibly have NO numbers?!” Well, I thought it was supposed to be “all relative,” that’s how. I think of Fibonacci simply as past plus present equals future. It’s friendlier. A piece of time (commonly conceived of as the amount of space a massive object crosses at a given energy, such as the planck time for example, but when visualized as a piece of time we don’t have to involve analogies of lower dimensions to inadequately conceptualize the bending of spacetime but rather can use radiant lines on a polar grid to represent time lengths), or duration, regardless of scale, increasingly contracts in space the closer it is to a massive body when measured. The tetrahedral dynamic makes for systemic self similarity at all scales, which we are about to see.

Put as simply as I can: time contracts with proximity to mass, ergo time=(matter*energy)/space.

A working definition of time as basically being space’s atmosphere. Complete, coherent sentence structure written right into the formula to define by lucid description each of the four aspects of relativity. A logical mechanism behind every aspect of relativistic, quantum or holographic phenomena ever observed which serves to make quick sense of it all. Now you can not only make sense of but actually predict that increasing in mass while widening and flattening when traveling at great speed. No mystery. No math. No senseless word salad or inaccessibility or jargon. I daresay no other idea possible could ever make the universe either clearer or more cohesive to the average person than that -- nothing can even approach it in its audacity or elucidation. It swallows paradigms whole. For instance any reader familiar with an official taboo called “sacred geometry” will already recognize the striking compatibilities. So maybe all these seemingly disparate schools of thought across the world are reconcilable.

And if you graph in three dimensions the interaction of those four variables, this particular dynamic ends up graphing a tetrahedron, so this tetrahedral visual aid works on many levels from analogous to literal to metaphorical to algebraic to allegorical. Just looking, staring, helps.

Speaking of allegory, even the prefaces to Abrahamic texts cite “Tetragrammaton,” described as a trinity on a throne (throne being a clever invocation of the third dimension, resulting in a tetrahedron), as responsible for creation. Only then does the text start, and with it references to the demiurge or plural, lowercase-gods, which are not to be conflated with Tetragrammaton creation. Nassim touches on this too sometimes. Because it’s relevant. That’s not all by far. The concept from which derives the word “quintessential”: earth, air, fire, and water as allegory for matter, space, energy and time, respectively . . . there could be volumes written concerning the possible references from deep antiquity to incarnations of this “understanding,” but I am going to end here because not only do I not want a tome but that would also eventually take us into a bottomless esoteric rabbit hole involving speculation about everything from the square and compass, to Jachin and Boaz, to megalithic architecture from antedeluvian, neolithic, on through gothic and into today, all evoking and even hinging upon tryptic and dualism symbologies in tandem, as well as quadratus and cardinal, which each seem universally, gratuitously pervasive throughout time and geography, especially the farther back you look. The square and compass happen to make just about the best analogy for spacetime and matter/energy, and on more than one level. The alleged occult knowledge supposedly behind the very inception of certain initiate societies certainly would be encoded right onto their crests and into their architecture, if there did happen to be any veracity to such allegations of not only the mere existence but too the chronology of secret preservation of lost forbidden knowledge . . .

On the off chance I still haven’t adequately purveyed this revelation, let’s review.

M=ST/E Matter is space with its time displaced by energy, which explains time being compressed around a massive body, and makes the picture of an atom much more self similar to star systems and galaxies, even hurricanes, and paints a compatible, easily conceivable picture of a proton. One might even think of atoms as time energy (electron) riding on space matter (proton).

S=ME/T Space is matter with its energy replaced by time, or can be thought of as energy with its matter replaced by time, the combination of complementary visualizations is helpful for entrainment.

T=ME/S Time is matter and energy divided by space, which is a tougher concept maybe and will take a bit more explanation, as is E=ST/M energy being space and time divided by matter, but what that tells us is that just like space, matter, and time can all be thought of as “dimensions” of energy, so are there three dimensions of time. All the math and imagination it used to take for all the parallel universes, alternate timelines, simulations, and all different types of multiverse both finite and infinite, anything within physical possibility and imagination, all simplified down into the phrase “three dimensions of time.” Except the proposed universes with different laws of physics. Now we know the laws of physics are universal, and why. For instance, that time (chronology), like energy, follows the path of least resistance (probability), is written right into the theory. Which gets us into the laws of thermodynamics, and I’m trying to be brief so let’s keep moving.

The implications for the standard model, as far as I can tell, are that it applies only to those highly excited states of matter in those highly energized conditions, where we use huge energies in tiny matter to cram huge amounts of time into tiny spaces. I’m sure there’s plenty to learn from particle accelerators about exotic conditions, but right now it looks like we may be trying to decipher a phonetic alphabet from the universe’s finger paintings. Cramming all that energy into that space changes the way time works in there, and there really doesn’t even need to be a standard model for standard pressure conditions. The energy and pressure it takes to see a quark is the same set of conditions that created that quark. I could also get into why elements take on their characteristics, such as using the three dimensional vector equilibrium to describe carbon’s versatility, but not only is it long and complicated, I’m afraid it’s the ceiling of my pay grade. Briefly, the first electron shell is hemispherical, a double toroid, which gives carbon’s vector equilibrium room for a stable Carbon-14 ionization. For starters. Then apply the vector equilibrium to all carbon’s different elemental forms from graphene to carbon nanotubes and I’m sure they’ll just keep discovering more and more. I think having the first ever definitions for both time and matter are pretty big steps whether the standard model likes it or not (after all, the standard model is a presumption imposed upon us, not an observation--they may have the causal direction backwards). Anyway that’s just the beginning of the firsts where definitions are concerned. There are a few unexpected definitions too, later.

The proton happens to be the exact right density to contain the mass of the entire universe; the proton happens to be spinning at exactly the speed of light; the proton happens to be exactly the right size to overcome the Coulomb Force (nucleic expulsion); the proton happens to be exactly the right size to be the boundary between classical and exotic mechanics; perhaps the proton is simply a resonance. A product of scale matching scale and harmonizing. Like the photon and the black hole and the sun and even space itself, the proton's perfect, precarious, miraculously fine-tuned precision need not be explained away. We don't need to find the culprit behind the fine-tuning. The multiverse is not full of exotic places where the laws of physics make no sense. Rather, the laws of physics are a direct result of the perfect, balanced equilibrium relationship between the four aspects of reality: space, time, matter, and energy. Always there, always inevitable, always at the same scales and in the same ways, perfectly predictable, every universe works the same. The proton is the balancing point between two extremes in scale, which are the Planck Length and the entire universe, respectively. That balance being between inverted aspects of reality (it’s known as the Planck Length AND the Planck Time), must form a boundary condition between those two aspects. Remember, in order to form matter, time within a space is displaced by energy. So, a boundary condition constituting the very inversion it balances. Thusly do we begin our understanding of protons, photons, suns and galaxies, and even the speed of light. Do you see? Space is effectively infinitely dense, matter is effectively infinitely empty; inverted perspective, everything. In case this previous paragraph doesn’t yet make sense, I will include it again later. But let me just state one more time, possibly the most truly profound discovery of all time as well as yet another previously unfathomable prediction of Superrelativity . . . space is nearly infinitely dense. Remember when I said the Planck Time decreases (Planck Length increases) with decreasing pressure? That’s what the Proton Length IS. Matter is LESS dense than space. That’s why it takes the INJECTION of energy into a space, in order for equivalent matter to take up the same amount of space as equivalent space itself takes up . . . all inversions . . .

Matter is space and time divided by energy. Space is matter and energy divided by time. Time is energy and matter divided by space. Energy is time and space divided by matter. 

Deny the theory if you must, but if so those four definitively descriptive, undeniable statements will keep you awake at night until the cognitive dissonance finally snaps upon acceptance and turns to a feeling of renaissance. A close, thorough examination of the graphic on the next page courtesy Wikipedia Commons under “Sierpinski Tetrahedron” is the most helpful exercise to saturate the understanding of each layer of representation the tetrahedral dynamic exhibits. Copy it, print it, stare at it, eat some fungus and swim in it, whatever it takes. Each color as one of the aspects is just one of a dozen ways to see it. Here, watch this short video first, paying particular attention to the “cross polytope,” pictured below. Then come back and ponder the Sierpinski Tetrahedron on the next page. That is one of two videos I’ve found and included, the much easier, possibly more important second video, here, is also embedded on page 23, and they both help too much to skip over or skim over, so LOOK please! Then don’t forget to come back.

cross4d.gif


 Sierpinski_tetrahedron.jpg

(E=TS/M) = (M=ST/E) = (S=ME/T) = (T=EM/S)

Holographic Tetrahedral Fractal Tesseract Universe

Superrelativity.

There’s your Holy Grail.


Chapter 2: The Atom, Err, The Star System, Err, The Galaxy, Err, All Of The Above And Below

With the hurried summary out of the way, and hopefully the conceptual cogs turning, let’s start the book at the obvious starting place: the atom. As the new picture becomes clearer, we find more ways to connect dots. All protons and all electrons are exactly alike precisely because of their being the smallest vehicle boundary. Similarly, planets and stars are spherical but dynamic and unique because they are the middle boundary, their shape but not their makeup confined to the parameters set by that scale, and galaxies being the biggest boundary will be shown to explain why such thorough diversity of worlds, and why with the spiral arms rather than orbits. Nobody has yet invented a word for it. Self similar vehicles at three scales of existence. It’s like an atom is electron time energy riding on proton matter space, while larger scales involve elemental matter energy riding on spacetime, up until the high threshold where we have black hole time matter riding on space energy. Or something like that. I don’t like the language I’m confined to using throughout the second chapter, but it’s all there is as far as I know, and the second chapter is necessary to lead up to chapter three which is where it gets really, really good.

These concepts are literal but not exact. Yes matter is space with its time displaced by energy, however time is in there, just as are space and energy. But all three are held in potential states so the fourth can emerge. They’re still there, as dimensions of it. Space, energy, and time combine to make matter just like the fourth point in a tetrahedron is what makes it three dimensional. It’s called emergence. And the fact that these four aspects of reality are caught in a causal loop blurs the line between whether or not to think of, for example, matter as being literally spacetime divided by energy or just somehow symbolically. Because just like taking away that fourth point would transform a three dimensional tetrahedron to a two dimensional triangle only, we can bifurcate each side of the remaining triangle to create a self similar image of what would otherwise be. Doing so we make a basically exact copy of the tetrahedron that would be there if there were a fourth point, by connecting those bifurcations in our triangle to make a smaller one that depicts, but not is, at least not exactly, even though it literally IS, that would-be tetrahedron. And all we did was try to take each of those remaining three points, as we understand them, and dissect them. As a matter of fact, cutting out an equilateral triangle from an old box and folding each side in half to make my own tetrahedron to hold, study and turn over in my hands, was an essential fixation in the early incubation of the theory, and I can’t recommend it highly enough. I hope the triangle metaphor helps to show what I mean by “literal but not exact.”

Brings new meaning to the sentence: “Parables contain a hidden meaning.” Three like narratives from three frames-of-reference, which together elucidate something else entirely: a FOURTH COORDINATE, a concept much more profound, more dimensional, than the sum of its parts. The structure of the parable is the structure of the universe. Very effective.

Concerning the relationship between space, time, matter, and energy. This may help for to understand the tetrahedral correlation between the four: everything is just inversions within inversions within inversions. Unlike time, we don’t say that energy flows in a straight line. Energy just follows the path of least resistance in three-dimensional space. Always radiant, energy’s movement in space relies on direction of least resistance in space, rather than the inverse of that which is the opposite direction from force exerted by outside matter/energy, or, inertia. Energy has inverse inertia. So if we are playing musical chairs with perception itself from the points-of-view of space, from matter, from energy and from time, one by one as a thought experiment, since that is precisely their relative relationships anyways AND the dynamic they manifest, then I guess if we switch from the perspective of space to the perspective of matter, it becomes not time but ENERGY that appears one-dimensional. That’s because from the perspective of three-dimensional space, time appears one-dimensional. Therefore from the perspective of matter, time flows the same way you and I would perceive energy: not a straight line but existing here and there, all around us in different states of animation. But as living things, we perceive from the perspective of space, not that of matter. As matter but not living, inanimate objects take up space, but they don’t manipulate their place within it. Their matter breaks down eventually, but that’s not the same kind of impermanence as a body breaking down and no longer metabolizing. So a rock may be broken, but it still exists as rock therefore inanimate objects are incapable not only of changing space but of changing their own matter. Time appears to flow within matter in the same way that energy appears to flow within space: from within matter itself, it is energy that follows a straight line . . . hence the weak nuclear force. As we watch the energy within matter slowly dissipate, behaving like time, we can finally see it for what it is.

Which brings us back to the atom.

Time flowing really fast when we measure a tiny space, versus time seeming to stop when taking in a huge chunk of the universe, mentioned earlier, now observed via comparing those three scales of vehicle. When you look at a particular piece of time at a width of space of that piece of time, and then zoom out taking in longer lengths of space, that piece of time seems to shrink. You may take in more, other pieces of time, but that initial starting piece of time is the only constant so it’s all we can compare. Likewise, one can only fit so many pieces of time into a certain space with certain given energetic conditions. For the atomic scale, the electron orbit, it means universal uniformity for every tiny individuated proton, neutron and electron; nearly impenetrably huge amplitudes in standing waves or cymatic borders in the first few electron shells due to the vacuum density; and defined, universal lengths and capacities for those energy shells. All the uniformity results both in every proton, neutron and electron being exactly the same simply by virtue of being the smallest space that time can displace, and also in predictable, unique and universal traits emerging from each element’s different atomic geometric structure as matter accumulates and crosses into the middle boundary and classical physics simultaneously. The less space you have, the less possibility for diversity of matter, until you get down to the smallest scale where diversity simply can not be and there isn’t enough space in which for a trait of any sort to exist.

For the analog of the electron orbit but on the larger scale of space dust to small satellites up to blue supergiants, the inverse ratio between time and space measurements translates to dynamic and unique star systems and planetary systems, because of orbits being completely manipulable and capable of immense violence and destruction yet maintaining relatively long intervals of orbital stasis and wide variances in parameters over long intervals. This is because we are in a sweet spot where time and space have the least resistance on each other. NOT overchurned like a chaotic Pangea. Here is a short video which will really help explain. A concept which will soon make sense of visible light, not just protons and spiral arms. But being in the middle scale on both time and space means subtle limits to diversity in two ways: there are certain types of planets, certain types of stars, and certain lifetimes for their systems. All strictures that are inescapable, however the very same diversity of planet types and star types and elements is also the strength of working at this scale. Haramein has a “scaling law” about how life exists in the harmonic center of frequency over size or scale in the universe. The middle of the electromagnetic spectrum is where the color lives. You don’t have certain types of protons or black holes; level the playing field between any relative facets of reality, and that is where the most diversity happens. As you will learn at the end of chapter three, the beginning of time is pretty simple, and so is the end of time. No room for diversity like in the middle of the universe’s lifespan. Not that it dies. You’ll see.

On the largest vehicle scale, the mighty galaxy and its proton the supermassive black hole, the orbit takes on a new characteristic thanks to our inversion between time and space measurements. Those spiral arms apparently aren’t supposed to keep their shape, especially now that the stars nearer the center have been observed to be moving faster than those along the outsides of the spiral, which nobody (except for Superrelativity of course) could have predicted. But think about everything we have established so far, particularly concerning how time moves. On a scale that big, spanning that much time all at once, you can’t actually see time flow, but via the shape of the galaxy itself you CAN actually see what manifests from the time around the outside of the black hole moving faster than the time at the outside of the galactic spiral. The fingerprints, as a certain famous “alternative” researcher would say. It’s swallowing itself up. Not only does that epiphany make an otherwise painfully complicated problem of spiral arms not disappearing disappear with barely a whimper, but it also predicts a supermassive black hole. Just like Haramein did, but once again from a completely different approach. The thing is, if you try to visualize that discrepancy in speeds, the whole galaxy center going faster than it should but the arms not thinning out, it is a really tough picture to reconcile even with the benefit of this formula. These standing waves of time flow that make orbits circular at tiny scales and dynamic at medium scales, can be seen to diminish with each galactic coefficient in the spiral shape at such a huge scale,  as if the galaxy is shrinking away right before our eyes. Remember? Shrinking away?

Funny how so many of the predictions this formula makes have already been well proven by one of the other three paradigms. Actually agreeing with established science as much as it does, is tied for first place with actually making sense of everything, for most powerful verification among this theory’s virtues. Just like how there is nothing it doesn’t address, if there is anything anywhere in relativity, quantum physics, or holographic principle besides interpretation that Superrelativity disputes, I have yet to find it.

The galaxies are not disappearing. Well, they are, but so very very slowly. And at that scale, not so much only disappearing in time as disappearing in space. It looks scary like a bathtub drain, our spirals, but it’s just an artifact of scale. There is no effect from this at our human scale except possibly the illusion of the other galaxies racing away from us . . . it’s just that “aperture.”

The reciprocal of small spaces making time look fast and large spaces looking more static, is small matter having greater capacitance to free its energy despite storing less. Unlike mammalian bladders, the larger the matter, the more time consuming it would be to drain it of its energy -- assuming scale as the only variable. The tetrahedral dynamic at work again. But this helps explain why electrons are so easy to free. All they are is negative curvatures of space. The opposite of an all-assimilating black hole. Remember perspective inversion. These things, these electrons, these negative curvatures in space, should be called cling-ons. That’s what they do. They seek, and they stick. Call it a negative charge, but the only thing it’s repellant to is more of itself. The tetrahedral dynamic also goes toward why it’s so hard to extract anything at all from a black hole but a bit of radiation and the occasional gigantic jet bursts. Ah, the “feeding” black holes. Self similarity is whispering something about magnetism, let’s see what this formula’s picture of an atom would look like with such a phenomenon as these astrophysical jets happening on such a tiny scale as the proton. Well, first, briefly, an explanation of those pesky black hole astrophysical jets. “Will he ever get around to the atom,” you ask. Black hole jets first!

Yet another phenomenon with no sure official explanation but of which this theory makes short work indeed. Black holes feed, because gas clouds do fall into black holes and we do observe them falling in and accelerating to the point that they burn as plasma in the accretion disk, just like a star system or the earth accretes mass from around it which ignites in the atmosphere in the case of our planet. Except sometimes these black holes do exactly what scientists keep saying is impossible, they belch. I mean they really purge. Shooting plasma jets as close to the speed of light as anything else observed, shooting them tens of thousands of light years in concentrated bursts from their poles. Big mystery in the physics world, but they do know the enormous magnetic field present seems to play a part. And they watch certain black holes’ jets, ones that are pointing toward us so they can compare the light from the accretion disk with the light from the jet. But there is still no conceptual mechanism for these hugest of phenomena. A magnetic field the size of an atom behaves the same way as the magnetic field of a black hole. When accretion occurs asymmetrically upon high spin, as it invariably does, not only does the plasma of the accretion disk glow but the newly aquired matter also creates a temporary wobble in matter distribution in the spinning accretion disk, which in turn creates a barrel at the poles for energy to escape in a concentrated beam. Because remember, due to the density of the vacuum, not only does the proton spin at light speed but so does the black hole. The analogy that comes to mind first is drastically amplifying the output of a speaker with the simple application of a throat aperture, it’s called “horn loaded” as opposed to radiating, in the audiophile jargon. The driver goes from radiant to directional as a result, dramatically increasing the on-axis efficiency. These jets the black holes emit travel tens of thousands of light years. Of course they are going to be spiral in shape because of the black hole having spin. Of course they are going to correspond in brightness to the accretion disk because the spin purges the excess energy and then rights the matter distribution within the disk like a toy top, closing the polar apertures with centripetal force.

What black holes are is holographic projections of space from their edges in. Space turned inside out by one of those briefly mentioned chiral parameters of a vortex in three dimensions. That’s why the theory predicts that all antimatter in the universe is created in black holes and ejected from astrophysical jets, and sure enough once again a prediction is at least partially verified by the jets apparently being “primarily positron-electron plasma.” This method of creating antimatter answers the questions of why there is so little of it in the universe and why it didn’t cancel out matter.

What happens to a molecule whose electron cloud, the microcosm equivalent of the accretion disk, develops a wobble? This can happen because of certain nucleic arrangements. Neutrons have mass but no charge, so if symmetry breaks in the nucleon cluster and allows more positive charge to settle on one side of the nucleus than another (a tendency that would be both unique to, and universal across, each respective element, AND which, unlike the astrophysical jets would tend to have a unipolar iris rather than bipolar irises), the electron cloud will part because remember, it’s just a probability cloud. The asymmetry in the nucleus is not of mass, so the wobble will not happen to the nucleus itself. The molecule doesn’t wobble. The charge is all that’s affected, and while the protons and neutrons maintain their balance in mass, “charge” is pretty much all an electron is. Electrons part happily for an exposed proton cluster to form an aperture of “electron unlikelihood,” and they gather around the resulting neutron cluster on the opposite pole like a warm fire. Then we have the microscopic version of astrophysical jets, in the form of a “charge”: energized space. A fully exposed proton area would be an immensely powerful thing considering the “effectively infinite” density of the vacuum. A natural rocket. Most of the asymmetries on the molecular level are irregular in shape and therefore duration and not usually particularly differentiated. That means the clouds are generally only partly parting. The electron will still land in that clearing a few times out of a million or whatever. It still serves though to assimilate orientation of whole molecular systems even if it’s not a truly clear hole in the proton’s sky. The more pronounced the clearing of probability, and the more regular the shape of that clearing due to balance, the more easily the surrounding molecules can be reoriented to conformity and thusly the magnetic field extended. Of course we have a resulting direct ratio between strength of the field and clarity so to speak. Not only is that how we magnetize metal by scraping it against other magnetized metal; it’s also why elements that take on other particular, universal (metallic) properties arising from such geometric assimilation are the elements that can be magnetized in the first place. We can use that magnetic/metallic correlation as a starting place for reverse engineering the properties different elements take on and why molecular geometries bring about properties in the first place, but as I mentioned at the end of the first chapter it is not within the purview of this particular book to do so. However predicting how to magnetize a screwdriver by looking at a black hole, seems adequate to move along now.

This picture of the electron probability cloud parting does however shed light on magnetic fields of all sizes and why they behave as a self similar field at all, why black holes spew jets when they’re supposed to have too much gravity for anything to escape, and possibly even what a tractor beam might someday look like. Magnetism, like everything else, turns out to have a dizzyingly simple explanation. How this torus effect applies on the scale of planetary systems I don’t know except to stabilize ecliptics and create rings. Still, that’s the effect on the surroundings, not on the thing itself. It’s really nothing more than the same magnetic result in each scale, just the large black hole scale is visible because the accretion disk is on fire. A simple explanation for the fastest moving matter known: vortex in magnetic impedance like the eye of a hurricane.resulting from accretion and spin creating a focused polar iris until centrifugal force balances the accretion disk again like pepto coating a stummy wall. This whole topic makes me wonder if we may have completely mysticized fields just like we did with quantum effects.

There is centrifugal force on the matter in the accretion disk due to the spin of the black hole. The matter meets with the accretion disk thanks to centrifugal force from spin, and is then dispersed by the separate, resulting centripetal force thanks to the disk boundary, then thinned and forced to the poles. Note the differentiation between centrifugal and centripetal forces. The centrifugal force diminishing with proximity to the vertical axis and likewise the poles of the barrier, while becoming more pronounced with increased proximity to the equator, is what creates the double toroidal system (That’s a tough sentence, but it’s not the first. The tough ones tend to be crucial.). Some attribute this double toroidal shaped force of flow to the torus shape itself as some kind of metaphysical universal field, but not only is the dynamic that of a double torus, not a torus which is a completely different dynamic and one that’s actually out of balance, but also the double torus is an effect, not a cause. Just like centrifugal force sending matter outward is the cause for centripetal force spreading the accretion matter along the accretion disk. The centripetal force was observed but was not the cause. The spin combined with the boundary was the cause. Inertia. The torus (rather the double torus) is replicated by orbits at all scales, but it is an observation, an effect, not a force in and of itself. The single torus has one direction, no north and south hemispheres, and one pole is intaking so I assert that without some kind of Schauberger-style pump for laminar flow one way through the throat of singularity in a torus, it is a dynamic that perhaps occurs abundantly elsewhere in nature but not in the case of matter in a solar system or galactic dispersion, and although magnetic fields can look like a double torus they are single. The entire concept of a field as we know it comes into question as possibly a misunderstood dynamic emerging from spin and a boundary condition, which can be utilized with not only matter but spacetime to create charge, big giant functioning models of atoms worthy of any science fair or flying saucer. The shape of the galaxy is quite revealing for Superrelativity. Thinking again of Haramein’s notion of nested dots in space, only with the combination of not just nested spheres but now merged with directionless tetrahedral probability at all scales (just like an electron cloud, but for space not matter and at all scales not a particular size), and thinking of time denser nearer the spinning disk, and the whole”vacuum” thing clicks.

The proton happens to be the exact right density to contain the mass of the entire universe; the proton happens to be spinning at exactly the speed of light; the proton happens to be exactly the right size to overcome the Coulomb Force; the proton happens to be exactly the right size to be the boundary between classical and exotic mechanics; perhaps the proton is simply a resonance. A product of scale matching scale and harmonizing. Like the photon and the black hole and the sun and even space itself, the proton's perfect, precarious, miraculously fine-tuned precision need not be explained away. We don't need to find the culprit behind the fine-tuning. The multiverse is not full of exotic places where the laws of physics make no sense. Rather, the laws of physics are a direct result of the perfect, balanced equilibrium relationship between the four aspects of reality: space, time, matter, and energy. Always there, always inevitable, always at the same scales and in the same ways, perfectly predictable, every universe works the same. The proton is the balancing point between two extremes in scale, which are the Planck Length and the entire universe, respectively. That balance being between inverted aspects of reality (remember, it’s known as the Planck Length AND the Planck Time), must form a boundary condition between those two aspects. Also remember, in order to form matter, we take the time out of a space, and replace it with energy. So, a boundary condition constituting the very inversion it balances. Thusly do we begin our understanding of protons, photons, suns and galaxies. Do you see? Space is effectively infinitely dense, matter is effectively infinitely empty; inverted perspective, everything.

Now if we think of that balance (the vacuum of space balance not the proton balance), the balance between all sides in infinitely dense space (not my assertion, just the math talking) which Haramein describes so astutely whether you love him or hate him, now the way time behaves starts to suddenly, finally make a little sense, doesn’t it. Matter can be thought of as condensing the time lengths around it, or alternatively it can be thought of as matter throwing the vacuum off balance which bends, condenses, space. Yes time multiplies near matter, but also the vacuum of space goes off balance and therefore the resistance of the density. It’s both.

And all a field is, is a manipulation of that vacuum imbalance with its inverse reciprocal: proton barrier imbalance in the form of an unlikelihood in an electron cloud. The magnetic field that forms is a torus where the north pole has a beam of space which extends its time lengths, effectively pulling matter in toward it like time wind. When it’s magnetic only, the electron cloud is not completely transparent. But when there is a true hole where no electron will be ever, then you have a bending of space itself not just of other magnetic objects. Energized space not unlike that from the void of deep space, dark energy space kind of,  displacing most of the time from a cross section of space with energy via that aperture. Tractor beam. Or nearly infinite energy source. Or nearly infinitely efficient propulsion mechanism. Take your pick. Four mutually vindicated, complementary paradigms from which to draw our understanding! Relativity, Quantum mechanics, Haramein, and Superrelativity. Space and time are relative. Matter and energy are relative. Space and matter are relative. Time and energy are relative. Matter and time are relative. Energy and space are relative. With this theory, we can do anything.

So maybe the difference between an elliptical galaxy and a spiral galaxy is that the black hole of the elliptical galaxy never polarized to create a double torus flow and change the probability of placement of its matter from a vacuum-like balance to equatorial, except we’re dealing with definite placement not probability because it’s the macro not the micro. Maybe the black hole is below a certain spin velocity per mass ratio because it’s so big, or more likely hasn’t eaten enough of its stars yet to eat enough more of its stars quickly enough to start like a generator and begin the huge galactic double toroidal dynamic which will arrange the matter in spirals and serve as a kind of galactic puberty. I’m just speculating of course. Because of its scale allowing for so much plasticity of distribution as opposed to having a single unit of distribution on the scale of a hydrogen atom or just a handful for another molecule, the galactic neutron, being the center of mass, would be distributed around the black hole in a predictable, calculable mass of sort of oblate bulge or cloud of . . . something. Mass.

Wait, wasn’t I trying to describe an atom? The way everything is tied together, it may prove impossible for this book not to end up disjointed and erratic as a rule. As stated at the beginning of the chapter, the clearer the picture becomes the more ways we find to connect the dots. In painting the picture of an atom, we have to simultaneously paint the picture of solar systems and galaxies as well, not just for reference but for rationale. Not only is all relative, but as above so below. We wouldn’t expect anything less than a wholly fractal existence from a holographic universe, so what better way to explain it than by using other examples of itself doing the same thing at another scale like Goldilocks or the Big, Badly Misunderstood Wolf.

Let’s switch tactics and start at the beginning. All this self similarity and relative explanation for relative phenomena, makes for an anachronistic narrative, so we may end up subconsciously veering right back to the more right-brained approach at every turn. There are so many different schools of thought across the world in this day and age, there will be so many directions and starting places from which the diversity of readers might filter this information.

Before we start at the beginning, let’s review this whole concept of charge and put it in context. An electron is a negative curvature of space. If you were to watch something fly through a large negative curvature of space, it would appear to suddenly speed up and dart right through that space very quickly, expanded in length all the while, then resume its slower velocity as it left the curvature, all with no G forces. Negative time. It is the same distance from point A to point B whether or not the path traverses through the negative curvature of space, but if the path does go through that negative curvature, it takes less time at the same propulsion. More efficient. That’s literally all an electron is. And a proton is just a positive curvature of space. EVERYTHING arises from that. All energy is a form of negative curvature of space, because in the same way as matter is the inverse of space, so energy is the inverse of time. Therefore all of that intergalactic space really is quite literally dark energy, so even though the galaxies look to be flying farther and farther apart faster and faster, it will take the same amount of time to get from one to another as it always has. It will just be faster, more efficient, more warped space through which to travel. Does that make sense?

Remember the description of the early diffraction of the universe and how energy was inhibited by somewhat undifferentiated space. Compared with the universe today where the four aspects seem to become increasingly more diffracted into their respective colors, so to speak.

Charge is curvature of space and exists at all scales from protons and electrons, to black holes and intergalactic space. And everything dynamic always seems to happen in the places balanced between two opposites. A neutron is the center of mass for an atom. They’re not visible on the macro scale, but if someone were to try and move the earth and moon together somewhere else specific, they would have to find the “neutron,” or Lagrange point, and push from there and not from the earth itself otherwise angular momentum would slingshot the planet and moon on a different trajectory together altogether. A place of balance between dualistic charge. A still center in a fractal reality. That’s what we are. You are the neutron of your own subjective universe. In every way imaginable. Couldn’t possibly be more simple. An electron being a negative curvature of space leads directly in just a couple of steps, to everything we have been striving to begin to understand for seventy years, from antigravity to warp drives to death defying flying saucer acrobatics. And probably free energy, for all I know. The nucleus is the key, the number three, dark energy, tee hee.


Chapter 3: Beginning Again In The Beginning

In the beginning, blah blah blah. I don’t want to alienate anyone right off the bat, but the fact is that all of these observations about a holographic universe can be frightening at first. Some of the coming subject matter is bound to be deemed taboo by certain demographics because of its perceived occult bent. When the theory was briefly online as an impromptu video, I mentioned Nassim Haramein a number of times, because he does happen to be way ahead of the official game, and that was enough for a comment from someone about how if only I didn’t mention THAT guy he might have watched. Haramein doesn’t even say anything I would have thought of as alarming or radical, just new. To write his insights off for his having the courage to be ahead of the game is so painful to see. The attitude that western culture defaults to concerning concepts it has yet to understand, is a tendency to label such misconceptions superstitious and render them right out of acceptable conversational bounds, even if there’s nothing in the material particularly warranting the label superstitious. Sagan would say “Keep your mind open; it’s not going to fall out,” but others prefer “Keep an open mind but not so open it falls out.” There is nothing gullible about using new information opening up a formerly mysticized subject, to make progress in our ability to teach, articulate, understand, hypothesize, and interpret the universe. It just feels like there should be a disclaimer here that if you were raised in a culture of western materialist reductionist science, keep in mind that the line between empirical and esoteric is subject to change upon great insights in our universal understanding. That is one main reason progress happens in quantum leaps. Punctuated equilibrium. And perhaps if Nassim’s theory is hard to understand, Superrelativity could have given that commenter on that now deleted video the perspective he needed to wrap his head around it. Or perhaps because he had seen Nassim’s theory he might have gained extra insight and perspective from it to absorb Superrelativity, if only he hadn’t refused to watch for the very same reason.

A holographic universe has certain implications that are vertiginously phantasmagorical to the uninitiated on matters concerning every officially taboo subject from consciousness to “source,” and I have no choice but to use occasional vernacular which could be deemed as charged, or even woowoo, depending on the individual. But those are the words, that is the language. This book has no demographic; everyone needs to know, not just spiritual people. In the first chapter I used the words “all possibility” when describing the big bang instead or something like “source” or “oneness,” not only because it’s just as valid a term for it but not so charged, but also because of the difficult time science has reconciling with itself the infinities found throughout the universe, and the discomfort it might have caused anyone who went through public school. That is to say, only because of the difficulty an original brainwashing creates in preventing future brainwash programming. There’s just something disconcerting about it to some people, the thought that there may really be a singularity from which all springs. The ONE thing they just can’t, won’t, accept. Maybe it’s the ability for a term like “oneness” to become a bludgeon, charged with all manner of subjective yet rigid, ultimately alienating, belief. Maybe it’s the shortcoming of human language and understanding causing some minds to cast about for a word, coming up with only . . . I can’t even make myself type it, so I’ll refer to it as Bog, in a nod to Nadsat. Or maybe it’s just the thought of being a victim of modern exceptionalism. Denial may be humanity’s most abundant natural resource, but it is not limitless. The numbers tell us this is an infinite universe, and that jives with holographic theory and makes the calculations work for the other three disparate paradigms. Contrary to popular belief we are not entitled to opinions on matters of fact. What is scary to me is how helpless so many of our species are to the veil of cognitive dissonance. The unpleasantness of admitting what infinity really means, has needlessly obscured the cosmos to us for a century because of that very fear the establishment had about the populous ascribing the word Bog or anything spiritual for that matter, to anything science. On the other hand, the people holding onto any kind of “faith” are not free to explore without consequences, and by definition a security blanket is exactly what we will do anything to keep from giving up. Einstein was but one leap of imagination away, but the scientific establishment’s fear of pondering anything and everything deemed unfit, hindered the imagination of the populous for so long that the equations for the universe as they stand now take up entire walls just like a century ago despite his famous quote “If you can not explain something simply, you do not understand it well enough.” The theory of everything must by definition reconcile every disparate paradigm that has any basis in truth, but unfortunately the mindset of the scientist continues to mistakenly be that infinity and science are mutually exclusive. Well, take away the “renormalization process,” and voila all four paradigms come to life.

The first uncomfortable obstacle to overcome is accepting the holographic singularity for what it is: an infinite universe. You don’t have to lose your Bog or faith or whatever, just the propaganda and indoctrination that the control system has gradually written into the fabric of the very idea behind your faith over the last few thousand years. Call it possibility, Bog, Oneness, it doesn’t matter, just don’t ascribe anything else to it after the fact. Is there nothing humans can touch without corrupting? Everything begins pure, a garden, and then we tend to dress it up over the generations. Eventually in time we’re killing each other over what started out as consensus over a simple thing. There is nowhere to hang accessories on infinite source oneness or whatever, so let’s just not. Give it a name if you must, but then leave it at that.

Then, sacred geometry begins. This is another one of those charged terms. Sacred geometry. But I am not talking about crystals and chakras. There is a real construct in the beginning stages of the teachings of sacred geometry which has not only been used throughout history around the world even to this day to teach, but is also used by Superrelativity to help explain manifestation and dimension and the vacuum of space: a construct with countless names and forms from Metatron’s Cube, to the star tetrahedron, to the flower of life, to the Merkaba, Kabbalah, and so on.

I have seen people use triangles, trigonometry and “The 47th Problem of Euclid” to explain creation, I have seen people use numbers, pi and phi, and charts and tables of digits to try to explain creation. And of course Sacred Geometry purports to explain creation, and DOES SO at its early stages. These are not mutually exclusive perspectives, none of them are right or wrong; any way anyone can find to try to convey how to transcend dimensions or get something from nothing, or infinity from something finite, can be a valid thought experiment. There was a German word Einstein used for his conceptual rather than analytical approach to physics in coming up with Relativity: Gedankenexperiment. Translates as thought experiment. So if sacred geometry is kept to nothing more than a thought experiment, a conceptualization, there is nothing invalid about it. We are here to learn what the formula tells us about how to understand physics and the big picture as simply as possible for anyone to access, certainly not to develop a belief system. Never a belief system. The bane of humanity. These different thought experiments, visualizations, allegories, or whatever we make of them, can become impossibly complicated very quickly. Especially when people start ascribing beliefs upon these otherwise ambivalent exercises. Superrelativity never becomes complicated. It can help to clarify otherwise complicated conceptualizations, show what purpose they can serve to further our understanding, and by virtue of putting everything in context exorcise whatever resulting misguided beliefs or superstitions emanated from our original misconceptions from the inexplicability of a thing. We are entitled to our opinions on matters of opinion, but we are not entitled to belief concerning incomplete understandings of fact.

Sacred geometry was obviously invented before the modern microscope told us the universally shared way, shape, and form of dividing cells in all new life forms. Yet the processes mimic each other exactly, up to a certain point in development. The same point at which differentiation begins between the early development of differing life forms. We are not going to claim one way or another about whether at any time in the past there was a previous incarnation of microscopic technology, although growing evidence for a long-lived, previous, mother civilization might hint toward that possibility at least, it doesn’t really seem relevant either way. Because if you start with something as simple as a point in empty space, it takes the same exact steps to get from there to anything whether it be a puppy or Mars. The exact same first steps anyway. And that’s all that sacred geometry really is: a back engineering of the very beginnings of ANYTHING. Self similarity at work again. All this talk about sacred geometry, and I don’t have anything to say about it except to confiscate and filter through the formula the “seed of life,” “flower of life,” and “tree of life” which are found throughout nature in the beginning stage of all things both living and inanimate.

There is only one way to reconcile the notion of a creator deity in existence before creation to create creation, and that is the simulation model. Which would negate the absurd quasi-notion of “deity” regardless and turn the picture of “The Creator” into a computer programmer somewhere in a bathrobe with our new formula and a really nice computer. But the holographic model, as does sacred geometry, tells us that perspective and creation began mutually. There can be no “deification” hierarchy, only the future, those of us here now, those who came before, and that which came first. I have yet to encounter an actual definition for “deity” that even makes sense. What are we, pets? The “infinity” implies that the Mahabharata was correct in stating that the curse is not to live but one life, but to live every life endlessly. So, if anything, if you must, deify oneself and everything else all together as both the catalysts behind and benefactors of, all creation “experiencing itself subjectively,” to quote the late Bill Hicks again, the embodiment of the fact that eating enough of the right fungus parts that veil and shows the mirror. Bog is love, Bog is everything, We are all Bog and you are Bog and I am Bog and all of them together at the same time, but it gets no more complicated than that. Not even enough more complicated to warrant getting hung up on the word for it, let alone details. Beliefs. Tools used to lead us by the noses. If we use the knowledge that there are three dimensions of time, to empower ourselves to manifest our individual intentions, then we become the creator of our own universe, but that’s only in terms of an indirect, salvage yard sense. Your particular universe, from your neutron point-of-view, your world line, YOU create that universe from sacred geometry to the end of time. Subjective point-of-view awarenesses may share a mutual reality within which to interact relative to each other, but each point-of-view is by definition the center of its own universe. That’s consciousness. No, consciousness does not create reality, nor does reality create consciousness. Don’t we just love false dilemmas. A holographic universe allows for causal loops like that in the same way white light can be diffracted into colors via the very medium it needs in which to exist. All possibility, diffracted into material existence, subjective timelines of consciousness, and completion of all probability and possibility as inevitable in three dimensions of time. Consciousness and creation, the two great debates, turns out are each other’s cause and each other’s result. Just not on our scale of consciousness, at least not where the “entire universe” is concerned. The vilest, most divisive traits humanity exhibits are just drilled into us from birth: nationalistic fervor, religiosity, bread and circus, willful ignorance, bullying, tribal thinking on any scale. Easiest way to get people to do what you want is to make it about fear of other. The undeniability of the theory will give you the psychological courage despite our programming to start the picture of creation from a place of objectivity, whether it’s regardless of being brought up to adhere to an antiquated, ignorant, bronze age, sand people frame of reference turned woefully literal, or the standard supremely arrogantly hardline reductionist western science model that disempowers us from the infinite awareness we are, only if we give up something of what we came into this believing, will we stand a chance of understanding what the formula tells us of the beginning. Therein lies the dilemma faced by Superrelativity: nobody on either side of the science/religion dichotomy can afford a reconciled creation despite unity being the honest intention of so many. Then who would be the enemy? What would be the point of life in the age of the robber barons without someone to hate? What function would we serve if not pawns? To those in charge in the shadows, we are but lemmings for the real life board game neverending war that makes them richer by perpetuating conflict. The endless, needless fight based solely on ignorance of other perspectives and tragically short lifespans and a manufactured reality. Sprinkled with dehumanization. Not only is there no room in this formula for mysticization on any level, but coming into the theory with preconceived images could result in that trick our minds do to us so we can sleep at night: categorical dismissal of obvious truth. Even in the case of the antitheist. There is not one (currently an) adult that Superrelativity isn’t going to alienate to some degree, not because I disagree with anything they say but because I assert that it turns out they don’t actually disagree with “other” in the first place, whether because it means admitting there is a Creator and you owe the religious an apology or admitting we are the Creator and you owe the spiritual an apology or admitting your Creator is legitimate enough as such but needs his little black book thrown out as we say goodbye to the Age of Pisces and that this reconciliation means you need to kiss and make up with all other religions and all factions of your own religion and all the religionless because we’re all in the same boat now and can now see that we always have been in the same boat just one race on just one planet with just one atmosphere and just one ocean and all the modern infrastructure so fragile it could be knocked out with just one solar flare or even wiped from memory all over again by just one space rock . . . as long as we can all agree both to hear the theory out despite individual level of humbling inflicted by this revelation, and if accepted never ascribe belief to Superrelativity, then I can step off the soapbox and proceed. Anyway don’t worry, this theory is the least scary picture of reality there is possible, and to finish the chapter and finally get to the beginning, I’ll tell you why. This is where it gets really, really good.

We learned in chapter one, among other things, that space is the division of matter and energy over time. We learned in chapter two that Nassim proved this with his calculations of space being nearly infinitely dense, and that so-called dark energy proves this. Effectively making what one might think of as space matter and space energy inverses of each other. So way out there in the undisturbed vacuum of deeply empty space, energy is actually accumulating via the balance of the vacuum and then appearing to us as inflating space.

Space is just an effect that arises from matter and energy dividing over time. That has a lot of implications that a lot of westerners are not going to be able to abide, mathematically proven vindications of pretty much every notion in every spiritual tradition in existence such as the “illusion of separation” for a start. But before we get into that stuff let’s look at a particular step in sacred geometry where the shape of the vacuum is achieved, and I will ask how can there be any differentiation between sacred geometry and actual creation at such an early stage, considering the way the universal creative mechanism works in all its fractal iterations from a human embryo to the beginning of time. Maybe then we can picture the end of time, and if the theory holds to character there will be a simple explanation for regenesis of infinite universes one after another.

We haven’t even officially started ”in the beginning” yet, not until the next sentence, and yet I feel like there has already been plenty of conveyance of the theory that if the reader has been diligent, he or she will already have the understanding needed to ascertain one’s own answers.

All motion in space is relative. If there is nothing else but you in a void, you can’t turn or spin or move, because there’s nothing relative against which to turn or spin or move. So a perspective casts out, and then there’s a boundary. One “time.” Without the possibility yet of direction, that boundary is spherical. Move to the boundary, obviously any direction is fine because there is nothing else yet but a boundary relative to nothing except a point of origin, and cast out again. Two times. Now two boundaries cross relative to each other but not relative to anything else because there is nothing else, so go to an edge of that intersection and cast out again, and repeat this process around the starting point.

Quickly enough, we have eight spheres, otherwise known as the egg of life. And mitosis is indistinguishable as yet from sacred geometry at this stage, so it stands to reason that not just life itself but the whole holographic universe with all its fractal similarity would have to begin similarly. As exhibited by biology itself, at the stage of simply developing a singularity into three dimensional space, there is no difference between the beginnings of life and the beginnings of matter. Does that mean matter is aware?

Matter is aware enough that it and space throw each other off balance, yes. Which is enough to act as an observer, since there is after all, information being exchanged in that condensing of space around the matter boundary. Information in the form of time lengths. Or density of space. Differentiation, early diffraction of matter and space, is all that is needed to begin holographic creation from a starting place of sacred geometry.

After the egg of life, we continue adding boundaries around our starting point until eventually we have the seed of life, the flower of life, and then the tree of life. These are heavily featured in Nassim’s presentation material, and there is no way to understand the universe without acquainting oneself with ALL four paradigms, so I won’t go too deeply into how we lead from the flower of life into the vacuum because if you have seen Nassim, and you should, it would be redundant of me.

Suffice it to say that a 64-tetrahedron grid is a vector equilibrium with octave symmetry, or in other words a given piece of three-dimensional space perfectly balanced fractally in every direction and at every scale. That equilibrium is how the vacuum of space stores its energy and keeps its volume, and that is the theorized “zero point energy” into which we could hypothetically tap. The closer a piece of space is to matter, the more out of balance that piece of space is and so the smaller it becomes. So separating two very tightly entwined pieces of spacetime (remember, superrelativity because of its holographic fractal nature tends to speak in relative, not empirical terms) would inflate both pieces of space the further they were separated. If the two spaces were confined, such as in the form of matter, that inflation would make them radiate pure energy.

But did the theory just describe the energy derived from nuclear fission except from a completely different perspective? But yes. That must mean there’s another approach. A CONTAINED approach. That DOES sound like free energy.

So as “dark energy” works, space becomes more balanced and more loaded with energy and grows, as time seeps into black holes. Eventually, commutually, time just shrinks away the matter, and we have fully charged the vacuum of space again, simple as that. Back to the beginning.

And there’s how everything came from nothing. That we had to go to the end of time to describe the beginning should come as no surprise: dualities define each other, and everything seems to be inverted. The vacuum without matter left in it is infinitely energetic. The universe resurrects itself with its own momentum when it dies. And time works the same way for a person as it does for the universe. I don’t know about you, but when I was a young boy time was passing by me real slow. The body is a microcosm of the universe, and it works exactly the same way. The brain is also a microcosm of the universe. Everything is. That explains why to the ancients there was no separation between the arts and the sciences, or between metaphor and literal, let alone partitioning of studies into disjointed disciplines which don’t collaborate. Everything comes from the same teaching, everything works the same way, everything is relatable from sculpture to literature to physics to music, the beauty is capturing it on more than one level.

Self similarity all the way up and all the way down, forever.

I’ll be damned, I guess it really is just a ride. Time depletes us of energy, so we have to switch time off and go to inside-out space to put the energy back. Pineal gland is your black hole, which means meditation is valid maybe even necessary, and day dreaming is the consciousness equivalent of antimatter production. Who would have thought Superrelativity would even loosely define sleep of all things? We wake up from sleep, don’t we? Life is but a dream? Relax, it’s just a boat ride.

There’s the heresy. What does it say about the world that we live in, that the ultimate heresy is to use a systems analyst approach to reconcile one side’s version with the other side’s version by using all their collective doctrine and dogma combined to give them perspective, give them context, help them understand each other and agree with each other and prove categorically from multiple approaches that we all live infinitely and that in order to understand ANY of it and in order for ANY of it to work, all MUST be one, regardless of how many nestings of simulation there may be, if simulation is even the case? That manufactured reality we are given must be carefully crafted for a purpose, eh? The universe is just a big pretty gif, and we’re afraid of it?

Apparently Superrelativity is our potential empowerment and liberation and exactly the same forbidden knowledge which has been systematically suppressed for five thousand years. If this is a video game, Superrelativity is how to win it. If there is a real Prime Directive, Superrelativity either IS it, or is the path to it. If there is a problem, Superrelativity can solve it. If that’s not the Holy Grail, then I don’t want one.


Chapter 4: The Balances the Balance Is

Actually I think I am going to write the rest privately and give the first three chapters out as public domain not just as a public service but also as a dead man’s switch. Although I shouldn’t really need to write the rest; if you truly soaked in the information then the pyramids and Stonehenge and crop circles should all make sense now, and such things as the paranormal should have simple, blanket explanations such as three dimensions of energy. Please do everything you can to spread the truth as you know it: share this link; copy and paste the whole thing just as long as my email address stays on there; start a group in facebook; talk to people about it everywhere you go online that is relevant; spam the globe; ask someone you know who’s smart for their opinion; give me some feedback since this is still a work in progress and I can update it anytime up until the book finally prints which won’t be for many years, and I don’t even have a publisher yet; anything you can do to spread this revelation while information is still free and thought is still legal, because every person who learns this theory will look up from reading it to see the universe for what it is, for the very first time in their life and can never unknow it again, and because this IS a race to save the planet and countless species current and future and our civilization and by proxy the future of humanity on and off of Earth, and because this IS the best window of opportunity humanity has been presented with to free itself from the Control System and the greedy psychos who gravitate to positions of power, best opportunity in the whole of written history and probably the entire last 12,900 years thanks solely to the internet, and because this IS the real and true theory of everything and the truth we have been waiting for to part the veil, and the race between The System and The Truth is coming to a head NOW, time is running out, help is NOT on the way; at least not beyond what help this theory provides us with to give ourselves.

Time is up! The world is on fire. Saturate the internet with this; I have ABSOLUTELY NO HELP. This thing, this mere forrty pages, encompasses everything from “Thrive” to “Zeitgeist” to “The Venus Project” and so on -- it’s all in the name Superrelativity. THIS is the fourth coordinate that brings them together as working parts . . .

Continuous protection of humanity 49.27n 11.5e.

Expose Hidden Knowledge to ALL `citizens.

Advancement Imperative for planetary survival.

Beware of Orion 1350.3 and Z Ruticuli 39.1 ? 70. Avoid [signal] messages sent.

Beware the bearers of FALSE gifts & their BROKEN PROMISES.

Much PAIN but still time.BELIEVE.

There is GOOD out there.We OPpose DECEPTION.

Conduit CLOSING [Ding!]


Superrelativity is the guiding hope of the future, is the holographic as opposed to hierarchical, society that will get us to a cooperative rather than competitive way of life where half our planet aren’t starving, fighting, hoarding or lording and billions of lives aren’t dependent on house of cards infrastructure. There is no political solution. Politics is the problem. Laws don’t work. An actor becoming president (which by the way happened on the very day I was born, November 4, 1980), was the modern equivalent of Caesar crossing the Rubicon. It’s over. The Republic is gone. It has been, some time. Not that it was very real anyway; every US war has been created with a false flag lie, and “countries” are now just corporate proxies. The Founding Fathers tried to foresee and compensate for future coups from new directions, but they couldn’t have been expected to predict the planetary cancer that Puritanical Capitalism would inevitably become.

Superrelativity is the christ consciousness (which has no relation to the name Jesus Christ except its name -- nothing personal, Jesus). This is how we come together. Eyes Of Your Eyes. On the other side of the black, all is one. That’s where it all comes from: life, imagination, matter, that’s where it all goes. The inside-out space is all that’s permanent and all we are. Nothing to fear but doing harm, if we mathematically prove there is no end. The goal is to irradiate light and life -- ALL life -- to create abundance for the infinite future rather than subtracting from existence.

Superrelativity is the water bearer (the Age of Aquarius is upon us and this Revelation will be its catalyst which by the way incubated over the three-year period surrounding December 2012 from inception in March 2011, to twelve or eighteen months later when the first concrete ideas and concepts started to form and I cut out a cardboard tetrahedron from a beer box, until the original video went up slightly premature Dec 29 2013, and it was not an idea I created but rather a vision, a seemingly neverending yet somehow instantaneous download, which I painstakingly translated from pure telepathy for lack of a better term, into concepts and language). This is why the plural gods of Genesis and its predecessors struck us down “lest we become gods like [them]”. Here, EXACTLY half a Great Year later, we get our second chance at ascension into the greater galactic community. IF you do your part and share share share this document.

Superrelativity is the Apocalypse. The Institution is the Antichrist (not that believing in Daniel or Revelation is a productive or intelligent course; I’m just using the vernacular we’ve been given by our ignorant superstition), The Institution as a concept and the separation it causes, and the Nag Hammadi apocrypha proved it 72 years ago. I will do my best to make the reading less dense a mire in the finished book where brevity isn’t necessary. We have barely scratched the surface and not even mentioned a whole bunch of important topics, but some particularly in murica will say this is too long already. I say the whole universe in a single, novella-sized document is quite short enough to bother reading for free, especially if it makes the entire universe easy to understand, superespecially if it causes humanity to lose its illusions and shape up, but to quote Monty Python, you can’t please some people. Send your hate mail to craigflowers13@gmail.com just remember I never said I wasn’t a heretic, quite the opposite. Anyway contrary to what that book says, “apocalypse” is not a bad word. Bad words don’t exist, and ignorance is not bliss. Ignorance is the real shame.

Now that you have learned the theory, just for fun let’s take a look at the Emerald Tablet as translated by Newton and see if it makes any sense in context:

  1. Tis true without error, certain & most true.
  2. That which is below is like that which is above & that which is above is like that which is below to do the miracles of one only thing
  3. And as all things have been & arose from one by the mediation of one: so all things have their birth from this one thing by adaptation.
  4. The Sun is its father, the moon its mother, the wind hath carried it in its belly, the earth is its nurse.
  5. The father of all perfection in the whole world is here.
  6. Its force or power is entire if it be converted into earth.
  7. Separate thou the earth from the fire, the subtle from the gross sweetly with great industry.
  8. It ascends from the earth to the heaven & again it descends to the earth & receives the force of things superior & inferior.
  9. By this means you shall have the glory of the whole world
  10. & thereby all obscurity shall fly from you.
  11. Its force is above all force. For it vanquishes every subtle thing & penetrates every solid thing.
  12. So was the world created.
  13. From this are & do come admirable adaptations whereof the means (or process) is here in this. Hence I am called Hermes Trismegist, having the three parts of the philosophy of the whole world
  14. That which I have said of the operation of the Sun is accomplished & ended.