The theory.

The Crestroyer Theory

Crestroy is a coined word from create and destroy. In the quantum fields it is evident that a continous creation and destroying takes place in present time.


 In the physical Universe we have no complete vacuum. There will allways be electromagnetic fields and quantum fields. Therefore my postulate is that the speed of light is infinite in vacuum (light is created from a perfect vacuum, which is infinitespace/infinitetime.). As soon as light interacts with energy (also light) the speed of light is slowed down, and in this sector of the Universe it has slowed down to what we see as a constant. So, the speed of light is inversely proportional to the local density of energy. By all means, Einstein himself said that the speed of light is constant locally. Most  people have forgotten that in todays world.

Einstein was not wrong at all, spacetime just has to be revised . Of course there is a relation between space/time and gravity, as there is a relation between everything.


Descartes and many other philosophers before and after him, wrote about cause and effect. The mainstream idea in religion and philosophy has been that God caused (created) and then the physical universe became the effect of the cause. I don’t agree. I think that the cause and the effect occurs practically in the same short timespan, which also is what we observe in quantum physics.

God, spirit, soul and the id, is very confusing terms for the most of us.

Therefore I coined a word from create and destroy, crestroy. From that we get the noun The Crestroyer.

The Crestroyer is the creator and the destroyer. As soon as the crestroyer creates it destroys immediately afterwards. That is what we see in the quantum fields.

The Crestroyer started building the Universe by sending energy from one end of infinity to the other in flip/flop perpendicular waves. Magnetism is create energy at the up peak, and destroy energy at the low peak. Electricity is the same, but put up perpendicular to magnetism.

When these perpendicular energies are put together they form light.

The postulate is, that T=0 (start of universe) is first infinitespace/infinitetime, and in there waves are created and destroyed in time. Electricity and magnetism is basically the same, with the exception that they are perpendicular to each other.

When The Crestroyer made light in this fashion other Crestroyers did the same.

Two crestroyers had no problem stopping the creation again. They could just stop creating and the infinite spacetime would disappear. Light would vanish.

Three crestroyers behave similarly. As soon as the two others stopped creating and counter-creating, the Universe would go back to zero space and zero time.

But when the fourth Crestroyer arrived and made light in abundance in this way, and the four Crestroyers formed a triangular pyramid, the light emerged from the four Crestroyers condensed in a point in the middle of the pyramid.

That was the first particle in the physical universe, and it was just a bundle of create energy and destroy energi.

From here on I will start describing create energy as positive energy and destroy energy as negative energy. The reason for this is, that the metaphor of positive and negative is so much easier to understand for ordinary people like myself. Create energy is positive enrgy and destroy energi is negative energy.

When this redefining is done, the equation comes up with the result of zero energy in the primordal particle.

When the Universe started to have lots of Crestroyers, the light condensed into atoms, where the proton is a collapsed spacetime of condensed magnetism and electricity. And from there the known Universe starts off.

When The Crestroyer found out that he was the co-creator of a Universe, he started to remember his own creations. He had created his own photons, but he did not create the photons created by other Crestroyer’s. The remembering is located in his own created positive and negative energy in form of his own created photons. In space he has another viewpoint than his co-creators, and in his own space, he creates his own parallel universe.

The Crestroyer is his own parallel Universe.


The Crestroyer observes his own creations and those of others. When he observe his own creations, he looks at anti-matter in the form of his own created photons. When he observe others creations (including his own) he observes matter as we know it in the physical universe. The reason we don’t observe much anti-matter is because there is so very little of it in each Crestroyer, compared to the amount of all Crestroyers combined. Besides that, each parallel Universe has its own anti-matter, and is not necessarily seen by other Crestroyers. And each parallel universe has a different viewpoint than any others.

So my thesis is that the anti-matter is still here, and it is what we consider as consciousness and unconsciousness. It is The Crestroyers memory in the form of his own created photons. His mind. The Crestroyers mind is a mirror of the entire universe in the form of anti-matter.

When all Crestroyers in the Universe combined their minds (consciusness, unconsciousness, creative ability, visions about good and bad etc. ad infinitum), the physical Universe was and is mocked up in front of them, and we all get a little puzzled about it all. Every living being in this Universe including cells in our body, was once this Crestroyer, who created it all for himself to have a game. Every being is its own parallel Universe, and my theory then fits into all the different multiverse theories. There is a near to infinite number of individual Universes combining the physical Universe. We could also call them dimensions. But there is a near to infinite number of them.

So, antimatter and matter is a combination of negative energy and positive energy and the combined energy in the entire universe would sum up to a big zilch, zero energy. Symmetry reinstalled.

By that we have an explanation of the unexplained missing anti-matter. We see anti-matter, but not very much, because it is hidden in the close to infinite individual parallel Universes. The reason the universe doesn’t annihilate, is because the majority of antimatter is located in parallel universes to the physical one.


Einstein said that space/time expressed gravity and vice versa. This I believe is true, but relativity must be expanded. Space/time not only expresses gravity, it also expresses create energy and destroy energy, and the entire Universe. Space/time could be said to be The Crestroyer’s first creation, and from there it went on and on.

If the speed of light wrongly is considered to be constant, then that could explain dark matter and dark energy. It is probably miscalculations.

Dark matter is as simple as the speed of light being much higher where we observe the anomality.

Dark energy is the expansion of the universe in a reverse spacetime. Spacetime expresses gravity on subatomic levels only, and is the strong nuclear force. The proton is a mini black hole, and a singularity in itself. The expansion of the universe actually starts from the electrons orbit, so spacetime expresses expansion as well as gravity. This can all be explained by redefining Einsteins relativity. Dark energy is “reversed” space/time in this theory.

Big Bang has to be completely rewritten. The Universe is much bigger and much older than we think.

My postulate is that the proton is a mini black hole. The Universe is a constant flow of positive and negative energy. The charge is a flow of positive and negative energy in form of electricity. Gravity is a flow of positive and negative energy in form of magnetism.

I am aware that Einstein used the last years of his life to combine electromagnetism with gravity. I have not done the mathematics, but I am sure that with this write-up it can be done by a good mathematician.

My main postulate is that everything can be explained by electromagnetism, but I haven’t descussed the weak force yet. In ordinary physics it is different than electromagnetism, but it has a lot of similarities.

I hope to find that mathematician, because I am pretty sure, that the weak force also can be explained by electromagnetism. Einstein didn’t succeed, but that shouldn’t keep us from trying.

So why doesn’t the Universe collapse around every atom, when every atom is a black hole?

Because there are degrees of infinity. Therefore there are degrees of black holes and singularities.

And now we come to the whole point of my theory. My argument throughout is that we must, must, must, learn to calculate with degrees of infinity.

Physicists jokingly say that there are two kinds of infinity. There are infinities and there are “nasty infinities”. When we find these “nasty” infinities, then we call them anomalities, and renormalize until we  can understand it with what we know.

We may very well never understand everything, but let us keep trying.

Otto Krog

22. June 2011

otto krogh otto krogh otto krogh otto krogh otto krogh otto krogh otto krogh otto krogh 


§ 130 Responses to The theory.

  • The Crestroyer Theory is founded on the last 100 years of observations.

    When we today observe something that does not fit into general relativity, we make new mathematics, that makes it fit. As with the Higgs particle. It is nothing but a predicted particle that fit into all other mathematics, including general relativity.

    If the Higgs particle is found my theory is completely falsified, and I will rethink the whole theory again. The Higgs particle will not be found, that is my prediction.

    I am not saying that Einstein is wrong. Of course space/time relates to gravity. What I am saying is that expansion (the cosmological constant) also expresses space/time. In that way reality becomes a 3 dimensional Eucledian flat universe as observations from WMAP indicates.

    Space/time expresses gravity but also expansion (dark energy).

    In that way they rule out each other, and we get a flat 3D Eucledian cosmos as our common reality.

  • Troels Mikkelsen says:

    To ortophrase George W. Bush: “This is clearly not a physical theory. It has no numbers”.

    • I have never suggested that this theory is a mathematical or physical theory. It is surely and definitely a philosophical theory based on 100 years of physical observations.

      The purpose of this blog is among many others, that I would very much like to find a mathematician, who could put a lot of numbers and symbols into the theory, so it can satisfy especially you and George W. Bush, if that was his words..

  • In Transcendental monism consciousness is primary. Energy, intelligence and information is unified and can create matter since energy can be transformed into matter.
    What we see as nothingness is transcendental monism of these basics in a state beyond our comprehension.
    The vacuum contains virtual photons that continually arise and disappear as a result of quantum fluctuations. Now, researchers at Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden has shown that they can transform virtual photons into real photons. They have so to speak, created light out of nowhere. Nature Volume: 479, Pages :376-379, 2011. The virtual photons are caught between moving mirrors and converted into real photons. One can then say we ‘fish’ photons out of nothingness but energy is taken from the kinetic energy of the mirrors.
    Basically, even in “nothing” is “something”. Nothing does not exist, because there is “something” in it – we just can not recognize it.
    The Crestoyer Theory may therefore be right but regarding the second law of thermodynamics it is rather pesimistic. Regarding mentioning of several Crestoyers i cannot follow you.
    Remember: life is the only factor decreasing entrophy.

    • I don’t get the pessimistic aspect, please explain.

      Regarding the close to infinite crestroyers. That idea is founded in thosands of years of philosophical speculation in what life in reality is. According to my theory life is in every living cell. Therefore every living cell is its own universe. Combined we all create reality, as we see it.

      It is probably wrong, why should I have the truth, but I believe in it. Elsewise I wouldn’t communicate about it.

    • Thomas Carlsen says:

      Gravity decreases entrophy: Transforming big messy galaxies into uniform singularities (black holes).

  • Mick says:

    you may well have a point about light speed in terms of what we understand to be a vacuum, but as far as I’m aware, a ‘real’ vacuum, if it exists at any point, in theory (and of course any theory can be wrong), will expand outwards at the speed of light and will reduce the range of the strong force as it does so. This will essentially cause all of the protons and neutrons in its path to disintigrate. There is no reason to believe that the current energy level of a vacuum is at it’s lowest possible level, but it is what it is at the moment and seems to be consistent and thankfully I still seem to be here to make the comment. By the way, how can you say that a proton is a miniture black hole, when it’s constantly emiting photons? What would be keeping the electrons in orbit? No scientist would suggest that current theories are totally correct, but they are at least useful and have strong and consistent levels of predictability. Anyone can make up their own theory, but it has to have some kind of mathematical or experimental verrassity behind it if it’s to be taken seriously. This stuff, although it’s interesting, is just waffle.

    • You are absolutely right, it is just wafle, and I know that very well. That is why I am so anxious to find a real mathematical genious, that can unwafle it. I am just a simple guy from Denmark.

      You are also right about the black hole in the proton. In my soon upcoming revised edition, the proton approaches infinite energy, but its only close.

      Glad to hear from you, I always am.

  • Mick says:

    I’ll check your new idea out when it comes, but try and read a decent book on particle physics. There are lots of good ones that don’t go too much into the maths (and don’t use being Danish as an excuse when you’re talking particle physics for Christ’s sake!!!!).

    • For Christ’s sake you are funny.

      I have read a lot of decent books without maths.

      My problem is that i don’t understand how we could get the fixed idea that the speed of light is constant, and what happened to half of the universe, and why there are no symmetry between matter and antimatter.

      Those questions led to my theory. I am very sorry.

      The polite danish guy.

  • Chris says:

    The phrase ‘not even wrong’ springs to mind.

    • I bet a lot of scientists had the same opinion, when Einstein in 1905 postulated the speed of light to be constant.

      It is nothing but a postulate.

      It gets worse in 1916, when he says that time and space expresses gravity.

      What has been observed ever since, is that when the speed of light is measured to be different, the “anomaly” is adjusted ower time and space.

      Time and space off course has something to do with gravity, but it also has a lot to do with dark energy, the expansion of the universe.

      When you take expansion into consideration, and run a “reverse” Einstein on that, gravity and expansion level each other out, and space is not curving, and the only time we have is present time.

      Again, I am not trying to prove Einstein wrong at all.

      He was right, but the cosmological constant has to be taken into consideration. He said himself that it was his biggest mistake.

      And again, this is a philosophical theory, not a mathematical one yet.

      • Gus says:

        Perhaps we don’t need a concept such as ‘space’ if nothing exists simultaneously. All the ‘angels could dance on the head of a pin’. 🙂


  • David Skovgaard says:

    I do not see anything that should prove this theory right, but neither do i know any theory involving these subjects that seems truly plausible. Sometimes i think it is almost more easy and comfortable to withdraw my interests of physics and so forth because it seems that everything is leading to a dead end when it gets interesting. it seems that what is truly interesting, is out of our spectre of perception.
    And btw what should make matter different from anti-matter according to you?

    • Matter is the direct opposite of antimatter. Charge is reversed and in my theory time, energy and space is reversed too. That makes a real weird combined universe, where we all are mirrors of our past.

      I hope that I am proven wrong some day, as my theory proves me 100 % responsible for my past, present and future.

      A scary thought indeed.

      Keep on studying physics. Without physics and mathematics one thing is for sure, nothing will be proven right or wrong.

      And yes, it leads into many dead ends,

      Big bang is the effect of some cause we don’t know anything about.

      Keep in mind that the physical universe is the effect of a cause.

      Physics is about the effects.

      What physics are doing is trying to explain an effect by effect.

      It is impossible, and will always lead into dead ends.

      So, basically what I am doing is being a lobbyist for some cause, that I don’t really know much about. But that shouldn’t keep me or others from searching.

  • stugots2 says:

    I have found a home away from Home.

  • Brandon says:

    Two atoms were walking down the road. The first atom said “uh oh, I think I dropped an electron”. The second atom said “are you sure?”. The first atom said,”yes, I’m positive!”

  • juanma says:


    I hope you find help from a mathematician. My knowledge about everything you are talking about is so poor… but anyway I have some questions:

    As something approaches to the speed light time slows down. Does this mean that if we were a foton time would be stopped for us?

    If neutrinos are faster than light, shouldn’t the constant c be related to the speed of neutrinos instead of the speed of light?

    Thanks and good luck

    • I sincerely hope to find a mathematician too.

      The thing about time slowing down is a direct consequence of Einsteinian relativity. If the speed of light is constant, time will slow down, and space will contract. If the speed of light behaves like in my theory, we will have a flat Euclidean 3D space, and only one time, present time.

      My theory is back to Newton actually.

      When I discuss my theory with physicists that is their main concern. They think that going back to Newtonian understandings is stopping progress. My think is that continuing holding on to a theory that is wrong is definitely stopping progress in 2011.

      If Einstein was wrong, we have to go back before him, and re-think everything. That’s basically what I am doing.

      And believe me, I have the highest regard for Einstein. He was a genius in his time, but he has to be revised, especially when neutrinos travel faster than light, and the Higgs particle doesn’t show up.

      c should not be related to the speed of neutrinos, because a neutrino has mass, and c does not. It is two different phenomenons.

      And regarding photons. We are not photons, we are crestroyers of photons. But that’s just a crackpots theory.

  • Surge says:

    This is an insult to actual physicists. Your nonsensical spiritual ramblings are deluded at best.

    • I am truly sad, that you see it that way. I have the highest respect and regard for physicists, because they don’t buy any bullchit from crackpots like me, and things should be that way. Mathematics will prove whats right and whats wrong. My theory probably is wrong, but so is Einsteinian “belief” in the speed of light being constant in a vacuum that does not exist. If there is no electromagnetic fields, then there will always be virtual particles, and that cannot at any time or in any space be considered a vacuum. My postulate is as simple as the speed of light being infinite in vacuum. E=mc2 is off course correct, but it is a local phenomenon in space and time.

  • Jeff says:

    Please keep working on your interest on this matter. Not many people are willing to explore creative thought outside the bounds of their ‘education’.

    Find that math partner & take the naysayers with a grain of salt !!!

    Thank you for your writeup.

  • Flemming says:

    JBS Haldane once said: “The universe is not only querer than we think but querer than we can think”.
    Here’s a link (Danish)

  • Henning Godske says:

    I have been thinking a little in the same way, although my starting point is “time”.
    What if all we have is a time field where the time is not the same in all points (in some number of dimensions). The difference in time in different points (down to the Planck length) and the speed that the time moves with in each point creates everything else.
    * Energy is local difference in time.
    * Gravity is the time difference smoothing out.
    * Anti particles have time behind (or in front) of normal time flow and virtual particles in “vacuum” is created by ripples in the time.
    I do also need someone to do the math however 🙂

    • For the last 35 years I have been through the most incredible theories.

      Before I got the idea about antimatter being mind and consciousness, I had a lot of theorising about time. WMAP shows that we have a flat Eukledian Universe. It is imposiible to have a flat universe and then have space bending. If space doesn’t bend, time is the only constant (or close to constant, because there is no constants.. blabla). The only time we have is present time.

      What we need is mathematicians moving out of the box.

  • juanma says:

    Just one question. If neutrinos are faster than the speed of light by 0,002% we could take advantage of this to watch supernovas, true?
    For example, if we detect a big source of neutrinos coming from a distance of 2000 light-years away, the light from the supernova will be visible in about 1 year.

    • In theory you are right.

      One of the main arguments in disproving the neutrino exceeding the speed of light, is data about a supernova 168000 lightyears away that was found in 1987. Three hours before the visible light reached Earth a burst of neutrinos was observed. The argument from critics of the neutrinos found recently to travel beyond the speed of light, is, that if neutrinos travel with the speed of light as observed at CERN, then the neutrinos should have arrived 4 years earlier. A valid argument indeed. My argument is that it might be because our distances in space are wrong. Redshifts are used in measuring distances, and the way astronomers calculate redshifts inscludes Einsteinian relativity. Maybe the calculations are wrong due to that. This is one of the most important issues I would very much like to have a physicist and mathematician to look into.

  • Mikkel Breum says:

    Your theory, along with all other theories I know of, seems to just push ‘the problem/the unexplanaible’ further to the back. If God/Big Bang/Crestroyers created the universe – then what created that? How did that ’cause’ come into existence, what does that/they/the superstrings/the energy consist of?

    What’s the point of ‘answering’ a question, simply by inventing/postulating something unexplained/unexplainable as a cause..

    You can’t question God. Don’t ask what the giant tortoise rests on. Before the Big Bang time stood still.

    To escape this endless mess, the only option seems to be, that we find something that ‘truly’ explains itself.. Would such a phenomenon be possible to grasp for human logic (if it can exists?)

    I understand, that models that ‘explain’ the universe, can be practical. Even if they don’t really touch a ‘fundamental truth’ – if that’s to be sought – they may still work as excellent tools, that help us predict stuff and send rockets to the moon.

    Is creating such a useful model the ultimate goal for the work going on at CERN and for you with your theory, or is there also a hope to ‘get to the bottom of it all’?

    • Well, what can I say.

      I am a thinker, and have been so my entire life.

      You can ask the exact same questions about the big bang theory. What created it? Nobody knows, and probably nobody ever will. My main mission, if you could call it that, is to convince physics that the subject infinity, is not a dangerous item.

      Ever since the thirties we have known that the negative charge on the electron and the positive charge on the proton is closing up to infinity. For convenience sake the physicists decided to rename or renormalise the anomaly, and called the charges -1 and +1.

      That’s just one out of many examples of physicist’s anxiety for infinity. And when they meet it, they renormalise the abnormal infinity.

      What if infinity is the normal?

      The funny thing is that mathematicians never had any problem with the forbidden word infinity. They have thousands of ways to calculate the phenomenon.

      But off course they don’t have to prove much, they are just plaing the fiddle, and they are good at it.

      So, if I in any way can urge physicist’s to start thinking in infinite terms, my mission has been fullfilled, at least towards myself.

      And then they are very free to falsify my theory completely, and I will die very happy.

      So, I am sorry, I can’t stop thinking.

      Philosophers down the path of history has done the same. Many have been wrong, and I am probably wrong too regarding my theory, but what if I’m not?

      And to answer your questions, off course there is a hope to get to the bottom, well knowing that if and when you get there the game is ower. And I have a humble conviction, that if my theory is correct, we will have no problems in the future to travel wherever we want in the universe, and communicate with whomever we want in real time.

      But that is probably delusional. Nevertheless, I hope to God that I am right. I am very optimistic in spite of the fact that it seems like the world is going more and more insane for every day that passes on.

      2500 years ago Sokrates predicted that the youth in his time would destroy the world.

      I think that present time youth definitely will save the world. And I am not young any longer, so it won’t be me.

  • Boomer says:

    Awesome theory! I believe you are on the right track to prove what the ancients already knew. This knowledge was lost during the last cataclysm. The world needs this. Have you ever read Ka by Robert Calasso?

  • wrax says:

    “But that is probably delusional” indeed. Im sorry to say this but your “theory” is nothing more than poorly written sci-fi. As in Science-fiction ( Mathematicians are plentiful, if you had a valid value proposition you would find many willing to work with you likely for free. Anyway there is no point trying to pick holes in your theory as its about as watertight as a sieve. To my point. You have energy, motivation, your writing style is intelligent and you draw on a broad spectrum of sources.You don’t, however, have a valid theory. Try and re-orientate your writing into a narrative form – I would recommend sci-fi. Brush up on your basic physics and im sure your cud produce something interesting. good luck.

    • Thankyou very much for the comforting words.

      Politics are devided in two, as anything else in this universe.

      Funny enough philosophy is too. There are those believing that the cause (thought) created the effect (matter) and then there are those that believe that effect (matter) created the cause (thought). I believe it is all mingled together, so we are both the cause and the effect, and what we are doing is just looking at that. 50 % believe in me and 50% say I am crazy. So it should be, because we live in a twopoled universe, and we are the spectators, creators and destroyers. We are the third pole, so in reality we live in a three poled universe.

      Science Fiction? Well, I have written a novel, but unfortunately its not been published yet, and besides that, it is in danish.

  • Kan det vara så här?
    Universum skapas när den elektromagnetiska vågen expanderar med ljushastigheten. Då kan man lägga i den bubblan en tumstock och mäta höjd längd och bredd samt tid.Vågen skapar rummet och tiden i ett icke rum eller i ett ingenting. Stick hål på bubblan och dra ut universum ur punkten. Man vränger universum ut och in så att bakgrundsstrålningen blir en mittpunkt i stället för våran vintergata. För åt vilket håll vi nu än tittar så är det start punkten som vi ser i ett krökt universum. Då är vi 13 milj. ljusår ifrån startpunkten. Den strålningen som har gått åt andra håll skapar sina egna universum skilda från oss därför att dess ljus aldrig når oss någonsin. Men massa finns ju i dessa universum och påverkar vårat universum. Kan man kalla den massan för den saknade svarta massan? Universum är det vi ser och iaktta ger, men så mycket mera finns utanför denna iakttagna horisont.

    • For non-english, what he is saying (I think) is that vawes create space and time in non-space or in nothing.

      I am posting it to show, that everybody starting to think for themselves, creates their own theories. I don’t think Lasse is right, but I am sure he thinks so himself, and my respect for that.

  • root4me says:

    The CERN systems are still only @ half power. They’ve worked through the GeV range predicted many years ago and it appears both teams, working with different hardware, different people and different technologies have both identified something, albeit weak, at 125GeV. What a coincidence!

    This alone, by CERN’s own leaked admission is NOT a discovery. What they will do is in the New Year, crank up the power in their mega machines and, now they have a feint signal in a specific GeV region, they’ll focus on that with increasing power and see how repeatable it all is. *IF* it is reproduced by further experiments, it is then a discovery.

    So not there yet…but a strong indication by two independent methodologies that a Higgs particle is existing.

    The announcement today will be the first blow, at ground level to your thoughtful, but scientifically selective and unjustified postulations above. After all you do specifically state: “If the Higgs particle is found my theory is completely falsified, and I will rethink the whole theory again. The Higgs particle will not be found, that is my prediction.”

    Seriously….follow that SciFi suggestion above. Much more positive use of your time.

  • Christian says:

    If you know that your “theory” is not at all a physical one, then you should really stop referring to abstractions that are used in physics, ie. QFT, entanglement and so on. Read by a physicist, your “theory” is nonsensical.

    I can recommend an Australian philosopher J.J. Smart, who’ve written some interesting stuff about how to discriminate between the abstractions of a theory and ‘real’ objects.

    • My theory is definitely physical, the proof is you reading it on your computer.

      But I admit that it is not a physicists approved mathematician theory, yet.

      Why shouldn’t philosophy go hand in hand with physics?

      It has done so for thousands of years, and off course it does today.

      The physicists I know are deeply into philosophy and they think about the puzzles we observe in physics today, as much as I do.

      • Christian says:

        Sure physics and philosophy can go hand in hand, and it should. Your thoughts have validity in their own right, but you should stop advertising them as something they are not, namely a scientific theory. You do that by using the same words as physicists, thereby leaving readers the idea that the theories are made up of the same sourdough, when in fact they are not.

        One can read a book on quantum field theory or black hole physics, and then afterwards come up with a popular explanation using pictures and metaphors. That is great. What you are trying to do is going the other way around, and that cannot be done.

      • That I am doing it, is the proof that I can.

        Anyway, the main purpose of this blog, for me at least, is to find a mathematician that dares bringing my theory further up.

        How should I do that, by not speaking the language of this potential mathematician?

        It’s like trying to communicate to a chinese in russian.

  • Dr. Yianni Lambrinakos says:

    Bravo for your theory. Keep up the good work! Don’t be discouraged by people telling you about science fiction. It’s all science fiction any way! We don’t know objectively anything.
    Why do you need a mathematician? Mathematics is an abstract science too. I think we are thinking about everything. How can anything exist any way.
    A Greek peasant!

  • […] The Theory ← Fuzz about the Higgs particle […]

  • Gus says:

    Well I tried to express the notion that the concept of ‘space’, having no real definition in itself, may be an unfortunate complication to the formulae. Although it is difficult to abandon our visceral connection to the concept of ‘space’, it is unnecessary if we can accommodate to a notion of 3 dimensional time. If everything has it’s own 3 dimensional time coordinate, then collisions occur only when these coordinates coincide. Perhaps we have one too many variables?

  • A Crank says:

    The Crankstroyer Theory

  • Tiempo,espacio y gravedad tienen diferentes caracteristicas en el universo.Tenemos T:en lugares en que no existe la gravedad y t:donde si existe la gravedad.La antimateria se encuentra en ese tiempo:T.Es alli donde los seres y las cosas se mueven a velocidades mayores a la velocidad que sostuvo Einstein

    Esta es mi teoria.

  • Gus says:

    OK, well let me put it this way. If we were standing 1 km apart, and I wanted to calculate the time differential between us it would simply be the time that light takes to ‘transit’ 1 km. That would be our time differential. It is not that matter exists in different places, but that matter exists in different time coordinates. We never need to worry that matter will conflict or collide unless and until their time coordinates coincide – then we have a ‘collision’. We have difficulty thinking about multi-dimensional time, or ‘time coordinates’ because we are so entranced by the illusion of space. We even talk about the explosion of matter, or the ‘big bang’ as an explosion in space when really it is the creation of time itself. Do you understand what I am saying?

    • Thomas Carlsen says:

      So that eliminates “position in space” then…
      – How can two particles exist at axactly the same time, but still be apart from each other ?
      – Is there always a (minute) time-differential between the particles making up an object ?

      • Gus says:

        Thomas, please see my last entry. There is no ‘apart from each other’ as ‘space’ is not a real quantity, only an appearance. ‘All the angels can’ – as they say, ‘sit on the head of a pin’. – Just not all at once.

    • I was working a lot with present time being the only constant, a bit similar to your idea. But when I realised that consciousness might be antimatter, I started on that trait. You might be right. But please elaborate as Yiannis asks.

      • Gus says:

        Well, Einstein was remarkable in that he was able to think outside of the constrains of ‘common sense’. Even though his claim that the ‘speed of light’ was constant was viewed as irrational, he was courageous (or foolish) enough to make such a ‘ridiculous’ claim because it agreed with observation – he was not much concerned that it be popular. And still today, the notion of the ‘speed of light’ being constant seems non-sensical. How can it make sense that when I am driving down the highway at 120 kms/hr and I flick on my headlights that I don’t add 120 kms/hr to the speed of my lights? It is if I were stopped or ‘frozen in time’. Or, and here is the point – it is as if the transaction was instantaneous (turning on my headlights and measuring ‘elapsed time’). I prefer to use the term ‘instantaneous’ rather than ‘the speed of light is infinite’ as the later implies both the notions of space and speed. Light, being without mass, is not bounded by these constrainsts. We are not measuring the ‘speed of light’ when we do this experiment but a ‘time differential’ between bodies. If we were measuring the ‘speed of light’, then Einsteins claim would be wrong. As it is, it shoud be re-worded the ‘time-piece’ as it is the standard for the measurement of time differential between bodies. As the ‘atomic clock’ measures the advance of time, so light measures time differential. It would seem that we have the ‘Big Bang’ to thank for this ‘time differential’ If we do subscribe to the ‘Big Bang’ theory, then we can likely say that ‘space’ did not exist prior (if there was a prior) to the ‘Big Bang’. The observation that the ‘speed of light’ is constant is also the demonstration that ‘space’ does not exist except as an illusion, a presentation of time differential, but not ‘space’. Look into a star filled sky at night. You may think that you are looking at a familiar scene, like you would look down a hill into a valley. The stars however exist in vastly different time coordinates. If you were only to see stars whose time differential was 3 years, i.e 3 light years, much of the stars would disappear, yet we have the appearance that they all co-exist. The same is true for all that you encounter in your ‘near’ world, except that the time differentials are much smaller and so go un-noticed.

        As far as the gentleman making claims about ‘Science’ – I would say, don’t confuse science with Nature. Nature is what it is and has and continues to make a fool of science. What is irrational and ‘non-scientific’ today, is the Nobel Prize of tomorrow. Einstein’s greatness was also his humility – his deep love and appreciation for the Mysterious – for Nature.

  • Yiannis Lambrinakos says:

    Please Gus elaborate on the idea of time being the big bang…

  • Broncio Aguilar-Sanjuan says:

    Wow! I am afraid my dear “radical theorist” you are just creating a kind of a “” new theory”” by hypothesizing lots of posible things what Science has not understood yet!!!!
    Yes, It’s clear we have not already got a vast understanding of Nature, and imagining “new worlds” is a source of inspiration for everybody in Science or perhaps a way to start, however, although you are currently suggesting a “”new theory”” on the basis of Scientific facts, that dose not make your statement true. Besides, you seem to have an obsession whit the phrase “MY THEORY”.
    Part of being scientist – and actually is a feature of someone who really wants to find the thrut, is accepting sometimes our ideas or impression can be mistaken, because basically “apperiances” as well as “LOGIC”, can be relative. The difference with Science is that experiments are factual, and not just a rambling speech!!
    You are allowed to imagin everything you want – and actually, that is good!!, but claming something is true without any type of factual evidence, is pointless my dear friend. Perhaps, you should have a glance at the article quoted above

    • Well, as I am one of the only fools on this planet making up a theory like this, and trying to prove it scientifically, I consider it my right to call it MY theory. After all it was me that wrote the words. Nevertheless read my comments above, I have many times said that I might be very wrong, and if the Higgs is found in 2012 I am wrong. At least as the theory is put together now.

    • darius says:

      you cant spell to save your life!!!

  • R L Parent says:

    Does anyone have thoughts on this idea?
    If energy can constantly change from one form to another, then maybe before our universe existed, and before space/time existed energy was in a form that didnt require space or time. when that some of that energy changed into a form that we understand, at that instant space and time would have been created in a big bang … and it could have happened in several spots at the same time.
    The energy that was newly created then would have been able to change into every other form of energy that requires space and time, including matter.

    • You might be right and you might be wrong. I just don’t see any particular reason to believe it, as I don’t see any observations indicating that you are right. But keep on working, it will definitely be a present day crackpot that will beat Einstein in the future.

  • R L Parent says:

    btw Otto, I did enjoy reading your paper and all the replies. I didnt quite grasp all of it, but I admire you for being a thinker. Gus, one of the followers on this blog also seems to be a thinker.
    There are just too many people who let others do the thinking.
    Anyone who puts alot of thought into …. whatever…. I will have to admire.

  • No wonder you didn’t grasp it, I don’t either. This is one of the reasons I made this blog, by getting feedbacks from all ower the world I have to rethink and rethink to get a better understanding myself. Thankyou all folks, please keep on blogging anything sensible or non-sensible.

    I reread Gus’ comment above and probably my next revised edition of the theory will state that the speed of light is instant in vacuum, and not infinite. Right now I think Gus has a point in that being a better expression. Thankyou for that.

    • Gus says:

      Hello –

      Yes, only one thing that I would like to correct – The word ‘instant’ makes reference to time only. It does not apply to ‘speed’ as speed implies distance, or ‘space’. LIght does not ‘travel’, it permeates time. What I am saying is that ‘distance’ does not actually exist as a real quantity, it is an appearance only. What we call distance is really a ‘time-differential’, but not time as what we think of as only a straight line – past, present and future. What I am saying is that nothing actually exists simultaneously, and therefore the concept of space is redundant, or un-necessary. Think of a roadway intersection where many cars must pass through the same intersection, but not at once. If all the cars pass through at slightly different times, there will never be an accident. Indeed, space does not separate the vehicles in this intersection, only time. In exactly the same way, if nothing exists at precisely the same time then what space is necessary? Space was never created in the first place as ‘space’ does not exist, it is an appearance, a symptom of ‘matter’ existing in different time coordinates, but has no reality in or of itself. It is Einstein that revealed this by his discovery that the ‘speed’ of light was a constant. If he had difficulty finding acceptance for such an ‘irrational’ statement as this, it would have been even less acceptable for him to declare that light, without interaction with matter (in a vacuum), instantly permeated all three dimensional time coordinates.

      • Thanks Gus, you are definitely as far out as myself. But it is obvious that you are mapping your way through the mysteries in your own way, and I like that. I don’t think we ever will be abe to unsolve all the mysteries, and I don’t mind, as that would be quite borering. Richard Feinman has this to say about it all.

        I definitely like that guy, and most scientists that I know are the same. They are so deep in their philosophical views, and the clever ones NEVER claim to have any truth. Einstein never did that himself. He said that where his wisdom ended, his faith started. Faith and doubt go hand in hand and they are both very important for progress.

      • R L Parent says:

        Gus, your way over my head. I dont know if your ideas can be dumbed down to my level, but if everything around me exists in different times, how do I interact with my environment? I am just trying to wrap my brain around your idea. Thanks

      • David Skovgaard says:

        I can see your point in the ‘time coordinates’, and the knowledge of time being different relative to different places, or the ‘time-differential’ as you call it.
        But anyway how should that fit in with the ‘time-differential’ not existing in a complete vacuum? Is this just a random statement, or is there anything laying behind your assumption?
        I can see the idea of the speed of light increasing as you make a space more and more empty, but I cannot see why this should result in the speed of light, or the time-differential, increasing/decreasing towards infinity. It could just as well be increasing towards a certain speed.
        Also the consequence of the light traveling infinitely fast would be, that the universe in reality is infinitely big already, or at least as big as it can possibly be, because I do not suppose the light meets any ‘resistance’ at the edge of the universe. If this is true you can might say, it is possible to observe that the time-differential is non-existing in vacuum, because the light must have ended up somewhere, but these effects is probably not observable anyway. It would maybe also be possible to say something about the ‘geometric’ structure of the universe, assuming it is observable that this exact phenomena has occurred/ is occurring today.
        I am thinking whether i have understood what you are saying in the way that it is ment to be understood, but it also leaves a few other gabs in the way that i think it is ment to be understood. What about gravity? Which speed is gravity actually traveling at, and under which circumstances according to you?
        As is see it the time differential is always relative to another place, but the way you are putting it, it also predicts that there is a time difference between one end and the opposite end of the universe if you go through the universe, but not if you just take the easy way through the ‘perfect vacuum’ of the not existing universe, assuming the universe is not infinitely big.
        Correct me if i’ve totally misunderstood what you were saying.

      • R L Parent says:

        David, As I understand Gus, he never said anything about the SPEED of light because speed assumes space. I will let Gus expand because I dont get it either…

  • ottoerennar says:

    Fucking hjernedøde nar hold da forhelvede op med at sprede dine lortelinks over alt på nettet stopper du ikke så smadder jeg dit site hvergang du stikker snotten frem

    • This guy is in obscene danish language threatening me to destroy my site, if I don’t stop spreading my theory by linking.

      I am posting it just to show how many feelings are involved when it comes to stopping new ways of thinking.

  • R L Parent says:

    Otto, I hope for the best in your pursuits. I think you have a long row to hoe.
    The best place I think you can look for someone to put your ideas into a math formulea would be here …Its a big group of “outsider scientists” i.e. smart people whos ideas arent welcomed in the mainstream.
    But in my thinking, this is what your up against: the models that are used do a good job in predicting answers. The models used are not the best, but its gets the job done. If you can find someone to lay down the formula that explains your ideas, it will be your onus to learn it and prove that its better than the current models. That will be VERY hard.
    Consider this: Hundreds of years ago there was a religious cult, the Pythagoreans, Who’s belief was that Gods language was mathematics…Schoolchildren are still taught the Pythagorean Theorem. They also came across a square root of a negative number. They came to the conclusion that it could be reduced to the square root of negative one and tossed that part out, and they called it an imaginary number. But we invented our number system and the ways to manipulate the numbers. Maybe we could have picked a better system that wouldnt have that conflict. At some point we either had to start over or incorporate this anomaly. Here is where we are, it makes the math more clumsy, but it still works.
    I dont believe that you will find anyone in the math or science world that will be willing to ditch the current ideas for something else. the current ideas match the predictions they make. Because it has gotten so complicated, and no one in the field is interested in starting over with a new theory, I think it will be up to you to learn the math behind your idea and prove that it works.
    It may take 10 -20 years to study the math and science, but that time will pass regardless of what you are doing about it.
    And who knows, by then maybe you will have refined it to the point that no one can refute it.
    You are a thinker, and that in itself is admirable. Check out the above link.

  • Dear RL,

    I have checked out the link above, and will become a member in due time. Thankyou.

    I do not agree with your prediction that I will not get anywhere unless I study math for 10 years. So many clever guys are allready on the same track as me.

    Nassim Haramein says that the proton is a mini black hole, and he have the math behind his words:

    Max Tegmark says that we live in close to infinte parallel universes.

    In ten years my theory probably is accepted as a theory as are the two above mentioned theories today. Going from a mix of theirs to saying that awareness is antimatter is not very long for a brainy physicist.

    That I probably never get the credit for the maths or for the philosophy for that matter, doesn’t bother me at all.

    I am doing this because I am convinced that when we get through the paradigm shift of changing relativity, the world as we see it in physics today will change, and I believe that it will change to the better. There is energy in abundance, and when we can control it we can travel anywhere in the universe. And that is far above the speed of light.

    There are so many clever mathematicians out there. They just have to get hooked. And they can for that matter “steal” my theory and work their own way through. I don’t care, I didn’t create nature alone. I did it with a hell of a lot of other crestroyers.

    My guess is that Max Tegmark and Nassim Haramein never will do the maths for me, they have their own hobbyhorses, as I have mine.

    I hope to find someone good soon. The maths can be put up in half a year max.

  • R L Parent says:

    Good for you Otto! I shouldnt have been such a pessimist.
    I will continue to look into this blog from time to time to see how its going.
    (could you put a “bottom” link at the top of the page so I dont have to scroll 14 miles to the bottom
    [or rather 14 minutes]?

  • Gus says:

    Hello David,

    It is very hard to imagine a ‘universe’ without ‘space’, and so I understand your difficulty with the notion that ‘space’ is how ‘time differential’ appears to us. Think of a computer game as an analog. Let’s say it is an aerial combat game and you are flying – a Japenese Zero against a P-38 Lightning. You have all the ‘3-dimensional space’, all the motion, all of the physics relating to speed, mass, inertia, momentum – you have all the scenerie, the airfields, the lakes and forests – everything appears in ‘real-time’ – yet where does all of this mass and space fit? – No space at all, in the spaceless RAM and memory of your PC (or Mac, or whatever). The space, or dimensionality, are simply numbers that are then displayed on your 2 dimensional screen to give you an appearance of space. The space of course is an illusion – it does not exist. This is only an analog you realize and so does not exactly apply.

    Now, I don’t mean to go beyond my simple statement, that ‘space’ or ‘dimensionality’ is an appearance of ‘time differential’ between objects having mass (mass and time being intimately related) – see Einstein’s connection of mass, time and gravity. It is the fundamental discovery of Einstein that the ‘speed of light’ is a constant, that is of importance. All of the other conclusions can be extrapolated from this. I do not dare pretend to have answers beyond this.

    Now, if you were a photon, you would be very confused and baffled by any such talk about ‘space’. Space would be as foreign a concept to a photon, as ‘no space’ is to us two legged humans. To a photon, there is no space, no distance. Climb aboard a photon and travel to a galaxy 20 light years away. You would kiss your photon wife, and pat your photon son on his glowing head. The moment you departed, you would have arrived. To your photon family watching, it would take you 20 years, but to you, it would be instantaneous. The photon has no experience of space whatever. Yes it might be delayed in shaking hands with a few particles it interacted with enroute. The problem we have is that we can’t imagine ‘reality’ withought thinking about ‘space’. If you were born blind however, you would have a very difficult time imagining ‘space’. Everything to you would just seem like a time delay. You wouldn’t ask, “How far is it to Grandma’s?”, you would ask, “How long is it to Grandma’s?” Just remember – light permeates ‘space’ – as we like to call it – instantly, from lights point of view – unless of course it must interact, or ‘materialize’ as matter, and then be re-emitted as a new photon. Light is not slowed by glass, or particles in a non-vacuum space, it is delayed, materialized and then re-energized as pure energy. Light does not have speed and so is not ‘slowed’.

    Certainly, ‘mass’ is all inter-related – gravity is proof of that. It is related over time though, not distance. If you try to describe ‘space’ in terms like – distance, speed and the like-, you will not be able to. All you can say is that space, is space. Yet we are so accustomed to it, so indoctrinated by it, that we can’t seem to stop imagining it. It is like the tale of the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ – we all believe he is wearing them, even though the clothes don’t exist.

  • Mathew says:

    Very interesting hypothesis, you don’t need mathematical formulas for theorising just an idea like yours, keep it up it’s important. I don’t know of any scientists who just come up with a mathematical formula before theorising even if it’s just in there head.

    My theory is that God doesn’t exist as a being it’s just vibrative energy & if he did came to this planet as it’s true self it would annihilate everything as the creative force is a kind of anti-matter with in itself. If it came as a human being it would have to be very careful indeed.

    What you have written sounds like an experiment by what I call the creative force, if this is so I agree but I also think that highly developed beings in our parallel universe are the creators of this universe I call this our mother universe & the father is the creative force itself. The creative force, father, created our mother universe & it’s this highly developed universe that created this one, the creator creating other creators, a far out theoretical idea.
    Keep up the good work, you’re not doing any harm…..Love Mathew

    • As you rightfully describe, my theory is in the Divine design category. That makes it so much more important to describe it mathematically. Without maths, there will be no acknowledgement in the natural science department, and that is the way it should be, as far as I am concerned. Thanks for your support.

    • Bless says:

      Mathew, just because YOU don’t know of any scientists that come up with formulas first, does that make you correct?
      Furthermore do you KNOW any scientists in general? Gimme a break.

      • I actually know a couple of theorethical physicists here in Copenhagen, and one thing that is very sure is that they get their ideas and theories BEFORE they start putting formulas down. When the formula doesn’t fit, into existing observations they restart the process. The idea ALWAYS comes before the formula.

  • R L Parent says:

    I also have a theory on God and the universe. My theory is that in order to become a God, each candidate has to pass God College. The final exam requires each student to create their own unique universe. The student God that created our universe got real drunk the night before and had a terrible hangover when he took the final. When the instructors went to grade his project they looked in amazement and said “what the hell were you thinking? There is black holes, exploding stars, things crashing into each other and for anything to continue to live something alive has to die! We cant accept this rubbish!
    Needless to say, he got kicked out of God College.
    Oh well, maybe next time we can hook up with one of the smarter students.

  • Mathew says:

    This theory seems to have brought us all out of the cupboard with similar theoretical ideas which is good, I do like yours, I posted this theory to a Noetic sight that I’m a little worried about for good reasons as I feel there’s a little more behind the scenes, it’s not good. Any way I got a bad response from the people involved in this Noetic site & not for the reasons they said, they are still living a lie & protecting ones ego, not good.

    My theory

    The creator creating other creators to create just like we do as humans it’s just a cycle!!

    We are all very much a part of that supreme being, God, creative force or whatever as we are individual parts of that exact force & I do mean exact with no difference except our seemingly individuality, in other words everything is one being one thing.

    Hypothetical: Try not to think that everything revolves around humans because it doesn’t anyway including human idealism & thought.

    Let’s say that you are the Supreme Being, that’s it nothing else but one thing just you & forget about loneliness as this is a human emotion, what then, as you are the only thing? Wouldn’t you create something within yourself, it’s not an exact image of you but individualistic parts of you & wouldn’t you create things that create other things, the creator creating other creators to create, hypothetically of course. What do humans, animals, the universe, other beings do they create things that create other things, it’s a cycle like the Mayans have worked out hundreds of years ago so why can’t we work it out now with the assistance from the past? Because we are blinded by humanistic over importance, we judge & valuate everything on these values only, how long has man been around compared to this one universe?

    The Mayans & other civilizations worked this out hundreds & even thousands of years ago, it just shows you that we are blinded by our own knowledge; we think we are so smart because we have read a lot & have degrees & diplomas everywhere so how come these smart people can’t work this one out? For the same reasons as above, they are full of their own personal self-importance…..Love Mathew

    • When reading this I do understand natural scientists disgust for Divine design and intelligent design. There is no scientific ground at all for your theory, but that doesn’t stop me from admiring you for having a theory. Wellcome to the crackpots.

  • ahmed says:

    Why shouldn’t there be one more crackpot…
    I think so too that there are a lot more in between ‘quantitative value’ and ‘infinity’. And that, while deriving values and formulas, we should not always take a presumptuous jump towards infinity, instead think about how it dives towards the infinity from the point we can’t calculate anymore.

    • After creating this blog I am pretty sure that there is a crackpot hidden in us all. The mysteries in natural sciences are so huge, that you have to dream up a theory about the unexplainable, in order to make sence out of the data. It doen’t mean that a crackpot can’t be right. I’m right, so a crackpot CAN be right. Haha.

  • Bless says:

    This is ridiculous. You are saying you don’t understand the physics – but you are using known physics to back up your theory. You should at least try to attend school and find out “what’s known” before just putting up a blog on the internet. Wasting a lot of time and energy, when you could be going to school finding out a real solution.

    • At least I am honest, and what I mean is that I don’t know the fully fundamentals. Nobody does that today except in their own specialised fields. I know enough about physics to know that a new paradigm is coming, and I am just giving my five cents on what that paradigm will be, in a philosophical context. Thanks anyhow for commenting.

      • Mathew says:

        I agree with you fully, everything derives from theorising even for those who know little about what they are theorising about & if that makes them crackpots so be it but most of us here has some idea of what we are talking about.

        Giving a philosophical view to me is natural for we, as a human race, have been theorizing philosophically for centuries, where did modern day science begin? With philosophically theorizing in theories, most of them were into mysticism in some way as well, to the disgust of the repugnant dogmatic scientists. So where were the learned dogmatic scientists back in ancient times & how did we progress without modern day science? Nowhere as we were mystically theorizing philosophically to advance the human race to what we have today, modern day science which by the way doesn’t have all the answers, as a matter of fact a lot of scientific fact have been proven not so factual as we learn new science techniques, science disproving science & so on it goes…. Love Mathew

  • Thankyou Mathew, and to Bless about finding real solutions.

    I don’t think we ever will find real solutions. There is a saying about true and false profets.

    The false profet says he has the truth. Avoid him.

    The true profet says he is seeking the truth. Follow him.

    I am definitely not a profet, but I am seeking the truth well knowing that I wil not get there fully in this lifetime.

  • David Skovgaard says:

    Concerning ‘the truth’ it can easily be possible for us to never find it, as mathew stated, no doubt.

    I am quite sure we’ll make up a theory explaining ‘the whole world’, which we’ve already tried to with string theory, and a theory which possibly can be true and explains the world we live in, but i am convinced that we would not be able to prove this theory. For example i doubt we can ever prove the most fundamental question: What is it that allows everything to be? Because in our world nothing can just pop out of nothing, it must have a course, at least as i see it.
    Think about this: Most of you in here probably know that the time of the universe growing bigger and bigger is speeding up. If you calculate how fast the universe will be expanding in around a 100 billion years you will see, that the galaxies will be moving away from us faster than the speed of light and as a result of this, we will no longer be able to see the galaxies except our own. Neither would we see the background radiation from the Big Bang.

    This lead me to the conclusion that we would probably never be able to know anything about the Big Bang if we lived at that time even though we would be able to make a theory about a Big Bang that potentially could have happened some 100 billion years ago.
    But we could maybe also make another theory explaining the universe just as well even though it is ultimately wrong?
    Just a little reasoning from here

  • Deki Del boy says:

    @And believe me, I have the highest regard for Einstein. He was a genius in his time, but he has to be revised, especially when neutrinos travel faster than light, and the Higgs particle doesn’t show up@.

    Hello, danish friend. I will disagree and agree with you.
    1. Disagree: Really, i don`t share your opinnion, that Einstein was a genius. Please, read his highly controlled and published biography. Maybe, you will be surprised. Alpha and Omega of everything was his, very little known wife, Mileva Marić – Einstein. She was one of 5 ONLY girls at strictly men`s Zurich Politechnic school in Swiss. Everything, but EVERYTHING she had callculated. She was one of the best mathematicians in Europe in that time! Untill today, that injustice is not corrected.
    2. Agree: After 1. everything must be rewised! But, do you think is it really possible? Thousands od Ph.d. thesis, after that can be only used as toillet paper 🙂 , tons and tons of books, too. Over 50 Nobel`s prizes, maybe will be worthless (except money), and finally, almost 100 years of human researches goes back at the start line…

    And finally, you (probably) know that you will spent a lot of your time and money to proof your theory. But, I wish you all the best!

    • You are much too harsh on my friend Einstein. He had a lot of faults, but name one man, or woman, who hasn’t. I too read the bashing literature about him with great joy, and I believe some, and see a lot as pure falsehoods. What if Mileva did the math’s? Who cares. They solved one of that times biggest mystery. What if light travels at a constant speed? That solved the big ether question for scientists in that time and age. And they probably agreed together that he should take the credit, just because he was the man, and she was the woman. Those were the days. However, Mileva was not responsible for the big breakthrough in 1916, where he proved that spacetime expresses gravity. If you care to go through my theory again, I totally agree on this fact, and it was, in my opinion, a big breakthrough.

      What he didn’t see, and how should he, was that spacetime ALSO expresses anti-gravity. How should he know, when the observation of an expanding universe was decades ahead of him in 1916.

      No. I like Einstein, I like him a lot, despite his flaws and mistakes. At least he did something, and made some marks in history. A lot of people don’t do that, they just yel and bark. No more Einstein bashing please.

  • Ramesh Ramalingam says:

    Just wonder how you would explain Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle with your new theory. Not only that, I am going to unleash a bit about my theory. When you and me standing opposite to each other we may not know each other but it does not mean for example one atom on your tummy does not know the atom on my tummy. Weird theory!! 🙂

    • The uncertainty principle is just one of physics puzzles. In my view there is no big puzzle except one, look below. If we start explaining the effect (the physical universe) by its cause (the crestroyers) then we will get somewhere in explaining a lot of mysteries. Today we try to describe the effect (physical universe) by the same effect, and that gives us a lot of puzzles.

      Not that my theory doesn’t give puzzles, because who the hell created the crestroyer???? Mindboggling.

      And a note to your theory. It is called entanglement in quantum physics, and it is NOT weird.

  • Ramesh Ramalingam says:

    Thanks for the reply!! Absolutely, it is entanglement in quantum physics. But, my concept is little different from theory of entanglement. I did not write it fully as I did not want to go away from the point of discussion- crestroyer concept. Coming to the point, I just wanted to say that every photon coming out of another photon has their own dna. This, let me call it as, photonic-DNA, again going to back to string theory which considers that the fabric of the universe was built by these strings with various energy level patterns. That is their DNA. This DNA formed these photons in a particular shape which is caused by, coming to Einstein’s theory of gravity, a common Einstein’s pressure that is influencing each and every photon all over the universe. So, particles formed yesterday and day before yesterday could not be far away from each other in the universe but lies in the so called, their own, vicinity. So when we search for the particle that was created when the universe started, my theory says that you are not going to get there unless you start researching this DNA and find various photons with different DNA. When I say DNA, I am not talking about Dioxy Ribonuclic Acid but he imprint of the photon. For example me and my brother can not live in different part of the universe beyond our photonic-vicinity. There is a lot to it. Just I brought out a little here.

    • There are so many theories floating around, maybe one for every individual interested in this stuff. My point is that one must be the correct theory, and i hope it is mine, but why should I be correct, when so many around me are incorrect. It seems like you adhere to Einsteinian light-cone which I definitely don’t.

      But keep on trucking, with all the theories floating around one theory much be better than the rest. It might be yours. Keep on trucking.

  • cigarshaped says:

    At least the Electric Universe theory relies on practically testability. Whereas the Standard Model relies on mathematical extrapolations of dubious assumptions, untestable and mostly invisible! What a sad decline in the scientific method, where once theories were dropped when they failed to predict. Now astrophysics consists of bodged and adjusted dark entities, maintaining a false Cosmology.
    The Queen of Sciences, like the Wicked Witch cannot bear to see a SnowWhite electrical successor, so her minions spend their time undermining/ debunking the obviously true alternatives. We may be dwarves but we can overcome the conventional bullies with the overwhelming evidence, if not the mathematical ‘proof’!

    • Dear Cigarshape,

      I find the electric sky theory rather interesting, but have one big issue with it. As I recall the electric sky theory, it suggests that magnetism is “created” by electricity. In ordinary physics electromagnetism is a fundamental force. I believe that electro magnetism is a fundamental force too, and thus I don’t believe in the Electric Sky theory.

      Could you please in popular language explain what exactly is the electric sky theory, and if it is right that it suggests magnetism as a creation from electricity. I haven’t researched it too much, as I don’t like the mixture of science, mythology, gods and theology combined with symbolism. I think that there are good solid science in the theory, but it is mixed too much with the above.

  • david skovgaard says:

    Tomorrow we know if (that) the higgs boson exist… That would make your current theory less likely to be true

  • It is most unlikely that it will be more than a sigma 4 verdict, and that is not a scientific discovery. I am looking very much forward to see the result though.

  • I have now a full presentation on YouTube if anybody has the interest:

  • Again says:

    OK. My friend. It’s interesting, just the fact the way you’re thinking. BUT, I need you to help me in this stuff:

    First, I can understand this: “The reason the universe doesn’t annihilate, is because the majority of antimatter is located in parallel universes to the physical one.”

    Perfect, beautiful.

    BUT, in order to understand the “WHY” of this, I need first to understand some of things I write below (OK, supposedly, it is explained in the lines before the nice sentence I extracted above, but again, I need more explanation):

    1. “In space he has another viewpoint than his co-creators, and in his own space, he creates his own parallel universe.” HOW, or WHY this happens, and how his “viewpoint” becomes a “parallel universe”?????????

    2. “The Crestroyer observes his own creations and those of others. When he observe his own creations, he looks at anti-matter in the form of his own created photons.” WHAT!?? Here, my friend, is where I do not understand what you’re saying. One: Why, or better, HOW is the “crestroyer” observing “his own creation” and when he remembers it, it becomes “anti-matter”?

    3. “Every being is its own parallel Universe,”…. why?

    Thanks for your time. And by the way, is the year 2011 when you started writing about this?

    I am sorry for the doble post, I wrote my e-mail address wrong

    • Again says:

      PS: Elsewhere, this in only in your mind, you only understand yourself and this is where it all ends. Thanks again

    • First Q. You are probably right that I said that he creates his own universe. That is wrong. He IS his own universe, and has all times been in infinite space. You could also ask me where the crestroyer comes from, as many has, and my answer is, I can’t know everything. When you ask physicists about where the Big Bang comes from, their answer is the same. How should I know.

      Second Q. Sorry, this is wrong according to my newest revisions. Electromagnetism is its own antiparticle. When the first hydrogen atom is created electromagnetism emanates from the first atom in the electrons orbit. As you remember there were four crestroyers to create this atom. Every single crestroyer is only responsible for the plus and minus energy (plasma) that he created himself. In his own universe, he is only watching the energy that he created himself. So take it easy, you are ONLY responsible for your own creations, not the entire universe. Hope it makes sense to you, but sometimes it doesn’t even make sense to myself, so how could anybody understand what I am saying.

      Third Q. Back to number one. I cannot know everything, I am not the Oracle from Delhi, I am just a nurd in Copenhagen.

      I got the idea about antimatter being the mind in 2008, and thought about it for three years, before I had the courage to make this blog. The theory on this page is way old, a lot of new data is in my videos. I am working on a new revised written theory, and will definitely take care not making blunders as you discovered.

      So if you haven’t seen my newest video, you should see that. The crestroyer made plasma, plus and minus energy. Photons is the result of the physical universe merging with infinite creators parallel universes.

      Regarding the double post, it’s perfectly ok, it probably gave me double stats.

      And as an end comment. Thankyou so much for actually working hard on trying to understand this in depths, very few does.

      • Again says:

        Thanks for your time to reply. I enjoyed a lot your thoughts. I must say: Keep on. We need ppl like you, who create, not people who destroy. (even though we create and destroy continually, according to your material; but anyway, I’m sure you got what I mean…). 🙂 Have a nice day.

  • Frank Norton says:

    I can neither say that you are right or wrong for the universe is too large and complex for my mind to understand. However, you do not mention the three families of matter, the Electron, the Munon and the Tao, and their purpose in the formation of matter out of vacuum energy. My understanding is that they are the reason for the breaking of parity, and the none formation of antimatter. CERN before they shut down for the building of the larger accellerator, found the tracks of two higs bosons (124-126 BEV) that each immediately decayed into two bottom quirks of the Tao family of matter. It would then, if this were true, the four bottom quirks could then either form two Tao hydrogen atoms, or decay into four strange Munon quirks, and subsaquently decay into four electron down quirks, and subsequently for two to decay into an up quirk and an anti netruno forming two electron hydrogen atoms, with no antimater involved.

    Next is the issue of lightspeed. It has decreased some 7% in the past hundred years, and likely was 10 million times faster at the beginning of the universe. The standard was measured in 2004 as 299,792 km/sec, in 1738 at 303,320 km/sec, in 1861 at 300, 050 km/se, and in 1877 at 299,921 km/sec.

    Then you are not allowing for a force fundimental to gravity, the Torsion fields of spinning masses, that has a speed of millions of times the speed of light, and is the unitifying field that unitifies the fields and interactions in physics. This is the inertial anisotropy produced by a rotating mass.

    As to anti matter having a negative mass and providing anti gravity in a separate universe, what about the 10 dimensions as part of string theory, of vibrating strings of vacuum energy?

    • I am not going into quarks, munons and taos, because nobody has ever seen them. It is NOT an observation, it is pure theory. What we as humans can observe is the electromagnetic fields that emerge from atoms and molecules. We have NEVER been able to see behind the orbit of the electron. If i am correct in my speculations, then we have to change our view on the atom and the periodical system drastically.

      I don’t believe in 10 dimensions, I believe in infinite dimensions.

      I know I believe a lot, but my beliefs are based on valid observations, not theories about something we haven’t observed.

      But thankyou so much for participating in this circus.

  • Don Degroote says:

    I’m still learning from you, but I’m trying to achieve my goals. I definitely enjoy reading everything that is written on your blog.Keep the tips coming. I enjoyed it!

  • I think this is a powerfull weblog with much interesting posts about this stuff. And i just wanna say thanks for this. I’ll follow your blog to see if you post more stuff like these!

  • Ewan S Fallon says:

    How about “The universe is a disturbed field of pure energy seeking equilibrium” The Big Bang is actually the Big Collision of colliding fields of pure energy, How else can it be?

    • Wise words. As I mention time and again, I don’t believe in the Big Bang as consensus teaches it today. But my main theory is condensed in your sentence “The universe is a disturbed field of pure energy seeking equilibrium”

      So in my theory “Big Bang” is actually happening in present time in the quantum field. Minus energy (antimatter) meets plus energy (matter) in the zero point field. Plus and minus energy will therefore at all times remain i a constant ZERO.

      The combined universes (the physical universe and all parallel universes) is everything (all energy) and nothing (the equilibrium.)

  • Frank Norton says:

    Regarding the Higgs Boson, CERN has acknowledged that they have indeed found it. Also the top, botton, strange , charmed and up and down quirks. The Tau top quirk was the last to be measured – the weight of a gold atom.

    Sir Fred Hoyle published his steady state universe theory long before he died. I liked it then but we know so much more today. The one that refers to our three spacial dimensions as being a shadow of the fifth spacial dimension has merit. So is the theory that the collision of two cosmic strings resulted in the formation of our universe.

    Perhaps it is all in the mind, and we are actually in the dream state. Again, this is too big for my mind and present knowledge. All that I know for sure, is all theat we know about physics, will change again and again. Each great civilization has come up with a different science, and method of keeping track of time.

  • I am a fan of the Steady State Model still. How can the universe be infinite (which is my claim) and then expand? It does not make sence. I am pretty sure that our notion that the universe is expanding is due to some miscalculations about the speed of light. My main argument is that there is no constant absolutes in the universe, and that also counts for the speed of light. The redshift observations that determine our theory about expansion would vanish, if the natural constants were changed to what they should be in time and space. If you haven’t see my videos. If you have, see them again, I don’t really get them, so why should you, by seing them once.

  • Frank Norton says:

    Lets talk about Torsion fields of rotating masses.These fields suposidly travel millions of times the speed of light, and are fundamentsl to gravity, in that they interact with the other forces in nature and are involved with the evolution of the Universe and its processes.

  • C. Zipperer says:

    Just want to leave another crackpot theory. I call it the adolescent theroy of everything since I came up with it in high school as a response to the experiment disproving the theory of the existance of an ether )namely that it has to be both of zero vixcosity and infinite rigidity – ie a graph). Consider that there is only one “thing”, connected one way matter is formed, another pattern we call space (Carbon connected as diamond or graphite woud be a poor analgy), The changing of these connections constitutes motion and energy is a change in connection being made. This should result in a equation relating space to matter and to energy (E-mc2 being an incomplete approximation). All these connection changes can only be made at once (this means there can be alternate (parellel universes not normally accesable because they are either of different phases or not connected (never did figure out what effect a different phased connection would be experienced as, perhaps dark matter or dark enery, or both depending on the out of phase connection type, ). Note that a centralized “clock” is not necessary, only that each point has the same “change frequency”. I quit considering this idea when I found the math in converting standard equations to that required for this theory to be beyond my capabilities (I also learned that physicists don’t eat as well as engineers and changed my major for college). A few of interesting results did pop up however: (1)There is a maximum speed (ie c) that anything can move (one “position” per “tick”). Thus the conclusions of Einsein’s world is pretty much held up as a consequence of the structure, not of a postulate. (2) There is no such thing as space! It is merely a count of the number of positions from one point to another. (3) There is no such thing as time! It is a count of the number of changes made relative to those that could have been made. (4) Gravity is the interaction of the two types of connections causing a pucker in the otherwise smoothe matrix. (5) Similarly electric charge is a twist or torsion that may be caused by the connection interaction. If you travel along with a “charge” you see and electric attaraction or repulstion, depending on your own twist. If it ‘moves’ relative you you will experience a force at a right angle to the direction of motion (magnetism). (6) Particles will come in definite sizes due to the geometry of the connections (I never rally got around to considering exactly what this geometrymay be but susspect it is tetragonic.)
    Few other philosophical notions related to all this is that our universe may e a collision between a collection of matter connected and space connected points. This would probably cause some detectable anistropic properties to the universe, possibly in reaction light spectrums and mass distributions. Atoms, molecules, galazies, thoughts, are patterns formed my the larger collections of multitudes of the matter connections. Probably possible to have universes were the connections of matter and space are reversed and still “work” (ours is mostly space type, allowing the matter type to become patterns).
    There was losts more, including math exercises, in my high school notes but most of them disappeared over the decades.
    Great reading from all you other weirdos out there.

    • Dear Zipper,

      Enjoyable reading indeed. In olden days everybody had the right to his own castle. Today everybody has a right to his own theory. If you want to get anybody else, but you to understand your ideas, you must work on communicating it in a simpler way. I understand practically nothing of what you just wrote. Formulation is key to understanding in the other end. But bravo for thinking and communicating.

  • In the awesome design of things you receive an A+ with regard to effort and hard work. Where you lost me was on the details. As as the maxim goes, details make or break the argument.. And it couldn’t be more accurate at this point. Having said that, permit me reveal to you just what exactly did do the job. The writing is actually highly powerful which is possibly the reason why I am making an effort in order to opine. I do not really make it a regular habit of doing that. 2nd, even though I can easily see a jumps in logic you make, I am not really certain of how you appear to connect the points which inturn make the conclusion. For the moment I will, no doubt yield to your point however hope in the near future you actually connect the facts better.Thanks for the marvelous posting! I certainly enjoyed reading it, you are a great author.I will remember to bookmark your blog and may come back someday. I want to encourage you to continue your great posts, have a nice evening!

  • Pot Mlm says:

    This design is steller! You certainly know how to keep a reader entertained. Between your wit and your videos, I was almost moved to start my own blog (well, almost…HaHa!) Great job. I really enjoyed what you had to say, and more than that, how you presented it. Too cool!

  • Good day! This is my first visit to your blog! We are a group of volunteers and starting a new project in a community in the same niche. Your blog provided us beneficial information to work on. You have done a marvellous job!

  • Mathology says:

    Somebody wrote: “You should at least try to attend school and find out “what’s known” before just putting up a blog on the internet.” This is such a reasonable, down_to_Earth statement which was even right about 100 years ago. Today, we don’t even have the chance to know everything in even most narrow sub-subjects. There are thousands of phd-s (very capable people) who did not come with a really new idea in their entire life. Why ? Their whole energy was and is used in learning what others do – thousands of pages of new articles are published per month.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: