Where Have We Gone Wrong?

Sir Roger Penrose

Physics, as everybody knows, is very equation intensive. When people argue physics in the laboratory, in a university setting, or even on the internet, it is all about the equations, usually. Yet much of our modern astrophysics is based on a famous theory that, counter-intuitively, relies very heavily on non-mathematical thinking. I am convinced that is why we still cannot find 94% of the universe, regardless of the vast number of equations we have generated in the attempt.

I am so convinced, in fact, that I have written a book which clearly explains exactly where that 94% of the universe is lurking. In other words, in this book, I explain exactly what dark matter and dark energy are, and why we cannot directly observe either. There are a few other things in the book, also, like an entirely new explanation for the bizarre lack of anti-matter in our universe (probably my favorite part of the book), and a description of how fundamental particles acquire mass in the most amazing natural feedback cycle that exists in the universe. The book also reveals a previously unrealized physical and gravitational depth in the structure of galaxies, as well as a conclusive description of the shape, movement and mega-scale structure of our entire universe.  Quantum entanglement is in the mix, as well.

What is this famous theory that I referred to in the original paragraph? It is a little theory that was published in 1905, titled “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.”  Most people know it as “The Theory of Special Relativity.” But most people do not realize that Special Relativity, and, therefore, General Relativity, is based, to an astonishing degree, on non-mathematical constructs. And, as brilliant as the theory is, that is where the wheels have come off on our understanding of the universe.

The non-mathematical constructs I am referring to are the two Postulates of Special Relativity. I have no quibble with the perfectly logical First Postulate; The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. Simple, clear, and obviously a solid interpretation of existing work by Lorentz and others.

The Second Postulate is where the entire field of Physics has been waylaid onto a siding that has taken us very far away from ever understanding the true nature of space-time, dark matter, and dark energy. Here is where Einstein interprets equations developed by H.A. Lorentz and others, making a broad verbal judgement which becomes a fulcrum for much of the balance of his Relativity theories. Einstein’s words carry so much weight that most readers of the Second Postulate would never even for a moment consider them to be anything other than perfect iterations of the obvious mathematical truth, period. In the final analysis, though, it is an opinion, and an interpretive statement—not mathematics.

Einstein’s judgment, stated as his Second Postulate, was that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the relative motion of the light source and/or the observer. This is stated as a simple universal truth which, for over a century, has dissuaded physicists from asking the obvious question; How is light able to pull off that trick? And is there more happening here than meets the eye?

Yes, of course the “speed of light,” known as “c” in scientific parlance, is one of the great natural constants of our universe, and it has been utilized repeatedly in equations formulated by many preeminent physicists and/or mathematicians. It describes not only the perceived velocity of light, but also gravitational waves (that right there should make you go, “Hmm…”). However, physicists have been unwilling, for the most part, to question how it is that regardless of whether a light source is moving away from an observer at 99% the speed of light, approaching an observer at 99% the speed of light, or motionless relative to the observer, the velocity of the emitted light that reaches the observer always appears to be c, in the observer’s eyes.  Just toss a ball from a moving vehicle and you will find that the final velocity, to an observer on the side of the road, would be the speed of your throw, PLUS the speed of the car. But light simply does not behave that way—the velocity never changes, ever, no matter the velocity of the source. Why even bother asking why or how, when “Einstein said” the speed of light is always the same (somehow). Move along, people, just leave it at that, please. Nothing more to see here, nothing more to question.

Well, I did question it, with all due respect to Albert Einstein, for a very long time. And that led me down a very interesting path. One of the top highlights of the book is a new model of the photon which shows how electromagnetic energy always interacts with an observer at the same velocity, regardless of how fast the light source may be approaching or departing—the ultimate “trick of the light” in the universe, clearly and easily explained.  At the same time, the model provides a crystal-clear means of wavelength propagation and shift. Oh, and that model leads right into the neatest little explanation for wave-particle duality you will ever see. You really should read this paragraph again.

OK, hopefully you got yourself out of the paragraph loop that preceded this. To be clear, I understand and fully acknowledge that concepts of relativity have been proven, over and over, in many different applications. One of the best examples is how we can measure the velocity of secondary relativistic particles in particle accelerators via the relativistic addition of velocities, which directly follows from the idea of the second postulate. Speaking of tricks of the universe, that is a good one right there, and it involves spinning particles. Atomic clocks at different altitudes verify relativity. Spacecraft and satellites verify it. But still, where is that missing 94% of the universe? Might that be because there is more to relativity, and the relativistic addition of velocities, than we have been led to believe? Yes, absolutely.

Allow me to remind the reader that many (the great majority) of the most widely accepted scientific theories of the past have been proven wrong, or at least partially wrong, eventually. Even the most widely accepted theories of modern cosmology have detractors that should be taken seriously. Sir Roger Penrose, for example, who is smarter than any 100 readers (and writers) of this article put together, does not believe in cosmological inflation theory. And he is 100% correct in thinking that. Inflation is not at all necessary to explain the evolution of the universe. Future cosmologists will be astounded that humans ever seriously believed such a thing, much like we marvel that people used to wholeheartedly believe in “spontaneous generation.” But let us get back to Professor Einstein.

Einstein’s second postulate cemented the necessity of interpreting Lorentz’s relativistic velocity transformation equations as describing the full possible velocity range of the entire universe, since that goes hand in hand with such an absolute, fully binding statement regarding the propagation/ perception of electromagnetic energy. It should be noted that Lorentz himself did not argue with that interpretation, either. But does that mean it is the correct interpretation? My contention is that Lorentz’s velocity transformation equations only describe the full range of the space-time reference frame of an observer, and mathematically describes the progression of perceptual artifacts within that frame, based on relative velocity and/or gravitational differences between the observer and the observed. But the transformation equations do not describe the entire universe: very far from it. Very, very far from it.

So, although Einstein said that nothing can exist outside of the boundaries of Lorentz’s equations, I am convinced he was blinded, so to speak, by the stark boundary of c established in those equations. And that is why I wrote my book, which is called The Enlightening, and is available on Amazon. Since the ideas are a reaction to Einstein’s non-mathematical assumptions, there are no new equations required in the book, but plenty of thought experiments and explorations of the universe from the tiniest scales up to the very largest scales: almost unimaginably vast scales, in fact.

Since the whole idea of questioning ANYTHING about relativity is heretical, I took it a step farther when I wrote the book, presenting this new model of space-time within the backdrop structure of a science-fiction novel.  Admittedly, I am not the first person to use a similar plot device in a science book, but I do think I may have taken it the farthest—you can be the judge of that.  Do not let the manner of presentation fool you, though.  We have been fooled for long enough.

Yes, this is an advertisement for my book. If you are interested in the weirdness of our universe in general, or if you would like to know exactly how light pulls off its incredible “trick,” or if you just want to learn about being in a different physical dimension, outside of the limitations of Lorentz’s equations, please check it out.  I can guarantee the book is unique, and, I believe, enlightening. In fact, that is why I named it as I did—The Enlightening, by Kevin Goczeski.

Advertising it on Facebook like this gives folks the chance to comment and/or tell me why I am wrong, even though they have not even read the book. Many people who discuss physics on Facebook ascribe to the most ludicrous, non-sensical concepts about space-time and our universe you could ever imagine. Even “mainstream” theories bubble with woo, looking to holographic or mirror universes, far out-on-a-limb mathematical conjecturing such as supersymmetry, and, yes, sorry, cosmological inflation. That list goes on and on, and every time I see another one, I wonder how, even if the theory were in some way true, it could possibly reveal the whopping 94 percent of the universe which is presently hidden to us.

Just for full transparency, I do not believe that 94 percent of the universe is hidden to us. The percentage is much higher than that, but the general point is that we are still blind to the great bulk of the universe, obviously. If we want to see it, we must step back in time, so to speak:  115 years back in time, in fact. An even easier way is to just buy and read the book. It is inexpensive, and it is available in paperback or e-book format in a variety of countries. Why not spend some time during the pandemic expanding your mind (besides smoking weed, for you jokesters out there), while discovering the most unique, entertaining, and easily the most logical theory of the universe out there?

Thanks for reading.  A link to the book is here, if you are inclined to learn about things you would have never thought to even be possible.  The floor is open for comments and discussion. Let us see who will be first to ridicule and/or criticize the newly proposed model without even reading the book first.

Easy to purchase, easy on the wallet.

2 comments on Where Have We Gone Wrong?

  • Science and Truth are simple phenomena of nature, but it is the known that is preventing us from mastering the unknown. Now, particularly after the lockdown, people will enter conclusion-free zone and the new era of science and economics will unfold from the heart of the absolute. After the collapse of the global banking system, the Truthful conduct people will witness a great transformation that will free science, economics and medical system from the age-old lockup of the corporate mafias where Truth will shine like a radiant sun. Long live the Truth of the future.👍