&

THE UNIVERSAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY 

(Universal Relativity)

SCI-FI HELPER - Inspiration for Sci-fi Writers and Scientific Advisers

Note: If you are new to the concepts of relativity, super strings and quantum mechanics, please bear in mind that these are my own theories, they do not reflect what is said today in science. This is a work in progress, some points are wrong. Only with your comments and questions can I develop this further: rm@crownedanarchist.com. My Shrinking Theory is practically stated in the book The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene, page 249 (Two Interrelated Notions of Distance in String Theory). Note that none of my ideas need String Theories, I do not talk about many different dimensions or strings.

The most important part to be read on this page is called (Consequences of the Shrinking Theory and the Universal Relativity) and it comes after the following 8 points and the three images that follow.

NEW!!! Correspondance with William Taggart. His Time Density and Mass theory sounds like my ideas. After you read more below, you can go and see our correspondance here. He is bringing the famous modification to the  Einstein's equation E = mc² that I needed. To my knowledge he is the only other person on this planet who thinks like me and he had 10 more years to develop his ideas. His theories answer all my questions below.

The Shrinking Theory and Universal Relativity in 8 points: 

1) Distance is relative.

Since distance is relative as stated in Einstein's Relativity, then anything moving is in fact shrinking relative to someone else's frame of reference. The concept of relative distance brings a distance dilation process in which speed can be seen as a rate at which objects shrink instead of a rate at which a distance is covered. A meter on the Earth is different from a meter closer to the Sun or a meter in a Black Hole. Therefore it is more logical to talk about shrinking distances. 

2) Size and volume are relative.

Since distance is relative, there is no very large or very small. There is no infinities and no two theories to be united in order to find a Theory of Everything. The stars are the same thing as atoms. One only appear larger or smaller from our relative point of view. Since both distance and time are relative, any calculations using these variables will bring relative results.

3) Speed is relative.

We calculate speed by calculating how much relative time it takes for an object to cross a certain relative distance. Therefore the speed of that object is relative and is different for two observers moving at different speed.  

4) C is relative.

The speed of light is not a limit and is not constant. The speed of light is only constant and a limit within one's own frame of reference. From someone else's frame of reference (frame B), the speed of light of the person in frame A is different from his, even though both calculate it to be C using their own relative values. If you go in a rocket at 20 times the speed of light, your time will slow down considerably compared to mine and your stick meter will measure much smaller from my point of view. We would both calculate the speed of light as being 300,000 km/s using our relative stick meter and relative time, but the real value of your speed of light would be different than mine, it would be 20 times faster than mine. 

5) Mass and Energy are relative,

there is no missing mass in the universe or dark matter to be found. If mass is relative from our point of view, then mass will be different depending on your frame of reference. So it is impossible from what we see to establish a correct model of the universe. The only model of the universe we will be able to draw will be a theoretical one. There is an equivalence between energy and mass, but it does not mean they are interchangeable and the same thing. Einstein's equations only describe what we see, not what reality is. 

6) The universe is relative.

There must be many things going much faster than the speed of light in the universe from our point of view, but it would be hard to conceptualize this as everything we see arrive to us at a speed of C. This brings new configurations of the universe depending on your speed, making the universe relative and making quantum mechanics applicable to the very large. Relativity proves that the very large is the very small and that Quantum Mechanics is the only thing applicable to the very large and the very small.

7) Black Holes ain't so Frozen.

Someone in a black hole will not feel crushed, will not feel getting smaller, will not feel time slowing down, will not even realize its mass becoming infinite. Black holes only appear frozen from our relative point of view. Spaghettification is only something we would see from outside, inside you would not really get spaghettified. Things and lights can come out of black holes, they would only take an eternity from our point of view to appear to be doing so. 

8) C in all Einstein's equations

needs to reflect its relative value and needs to be readjusted. Einstein's equations only explain what we see, they do not not explain what really happens. Things can now be calculated using Einstein's equations once we have readjusted the equations, or perhaps even using plain old Newton's equations. I believe particles in particles accelerators are going much faster than the speed of light, not 99.9999% the speed of light. 

_________________________

The Shrinking Universe Pictured

Writings say: Here is the new configuration of the Universe pictured:

That is it - And this also - The Universe is defined by a point (where you are) where you see things larger - Earth - Frame of Reference - The Infinities (Large and Small)

a) Einstein proved the relativity of time, but the relativity of distance as well

b) I will keep the concept of distance, I replace it by the Relative Distance

c) Why is it that the relativity of distance has been put aside?

d) The consequences of Global Relativity – Picturing the Universe

a) Size is relative, size depends on your frame of reference

b) Multiple configurations of the Universe

c) The Relativity of Distance changes the nature of the Universe

d) The Relativity of Distance implies a new definition of what are the infinities

e) The relativity of distance brings the infinities together

f) How can there be no distance?

g) If there is no distance, there is no real true space?

a) The light speed barrier is only within your own frame of reference.

b) Objects in the universe can go faster than the speed of light from our point of view.

a) A Unified Field Theory – Quantum Mechanics applied to the Stars

b) How to represent this relative universe in an equation?

1) Introduction

a) Einstein proved the relativity of time, but the relativity of distance as well

If we look at the General Theory of Relativity of Einstein and whenever a ship takes some speed, the ship changes its frame of reference and in that new frame, compared to us, time and distance are different, time goes slower and distance shrinks. Now, you could say there is still a distance, and call it like that if you want, (I did not get rid of it, I just replaced it with something similar but more accurate, the degree of shrinking), but distance is relative and it is changing along with time whenever you get some speed. That, I have not said, Einstein did. Then, if distance can shrink, then it is only shrinking the faster you go, therefore whenever you go at high speed, you only shrink even more, you never really go anywhere, do you? And when you go slowly, this is the same thing happening, distance shrinks, but relatively not a lot. That is why I cannot speak of distance anymore, but hey, there is a degree of shrinking involved now...

b) I will keep the concept of distance, I replace it by the Relative Distance

I have put a little bit of water in my wine since that. I still think that all matter is in one point and matter only shrinks or enlarges to our eyes, and that there is no longer any distance involved, but I think the world is not ready for that just yet. From now on I will speak about relative distance, shrinking away from people, but like the time dilation process, the distance dilation process is hard to realise unless you go at speeds close to the speed of light. It is saying the same thing without jumping to the terrible conclusion that in this kind of talking, there is no distance at all. So I have decided to not get rid of it just yet. I am now talking about distance shrinking but it takes quite a fast trip to see it. These days it seems to be the only thing that makes people stopped: how can there be no distance? Well, I don't know how this is possible, but I am telling you that it is the way it is. If you push the logic of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, it is the only possible conclusion. I fail to understand why Einstein did not see it himself."

c) Why is it that the relativity of distance has been put aside?

I was reading "Beyond Einstein" of Michio Kaku and I realized that Einstein was saying the same thing as me. I thought I was all intelligent to guess all that just to realize that he already saw it all. The shrinking stick meter is everywhere in Relativity. What people say about the theory of relativity is misleading us, they always talk about the relativity of time, quickly mentioning that distance is also changing, but they never talked about the relativity of distance. I understand why as well, distance (L) in the equations of Einstein get somehow dropped because they get cancelled. That is why they mostly talk about time."

Like Einstein we can make a guess about picturing the universe and how it works. The only thing is that he was able to get back to everyone with some equations to back it up. Even then it was not accepted until it was proven by a star that was somewhere else during an eclipse. So I am not dreaming, I will have to find some applications, predict some stuff, and get it verified. But what? What are the concrete consequences of my Shrinking Theory and my Universal Theory of Relativity?

If distance is relative then nothing is bigger or smaller than anything else in the universe. It is only smaller or bigger depending on your frame of reference and your speed. Someone going at another speed will not see the same thing, distance will be totally different.

The Universe as we see it will only be seen here on Earth at our actual speed, the Universe can have many different configurations. Get out of here, reach incredible speed faster than the speed of light (as I now think is possible) and the whole configuration of the universe will change. Things will o faster or slower, but you will not find the same configuration.

If whenever you get some speed you only shrink instead of covering a distance, it is safe to assume that you are in fact not covering a distance. We mistook distance for something else: it can be called the shrinking process. When you cover a distance, you are in fact shrinking at a certain rate, the rate being the speed at which you shrink. And if you are not covering a distance, since distance shrinks the more you get speed, then it tells you a lot about the nature of the universe. Nothing is really in the distance, you will just find things more shrunk than others.

Before there was the concepts of Infinite large, the stars, and the infinite small, the atoms. We were covering a distance through the stars and we could see you through a telescope. The atoms, somehow here, could be seen through a microscope. But now, whenever you go through the stars, you are shrinking. If you go faster, you will reach the atomic world. Which means that there are no longer an infinite large and an infinite small. Everything is part of the same thing. You are living in both the very large and the very small.

When you go at a speed close to the speed of light, you shrink. Meaning that whenever you go slowly, you still shrink, but much less. In one word, whenever you have any kind of speed, you shrink but always from the point of view of another frame of reference. The absence of a frame of reference makes that nobody can tell how big you are, your location and what is your speed, exactly like the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. We always need to compare something from another frame of reference. So if everything is different from one frame to another, who is to say how big is the Sun and the Planets? How far they are from each other? Who is to say that the solar system is bigger than an atom? Space and Time are changing all the time, you could see everything completely shrunk and time stopped, like you could see things very large in normal time. Still you see atoms going very fast… how so? So shrunk, should they not go slowly? They are, if you look at them through a telescope. Slower than anything else you can see in the sky at the moment because way beyond the stars. When you take a microscope, you take a short cut. You see way beyond the galaxies you can see now and that you will ever see whatever Chandra Space Telescope you develop.

The fact that time is relative does not mean there is no time. The fact that distance is relative does not mean there is no distance. But space and time have nothing to do with what you see when you look in the distance, it is different. It is not because matter can be enlarged or shrunk that it has no consistency. Matter is all there at the same point, but it is there for you to see it in many different ways. It can be shrunk completely in one single point like it can be enlarged beyond you to see it. Distance being relative to the observer, tricks are being played on you. Matter can be concentrated in one single point or not, you will have to get there to see it large or small, compact or not. It is all relative to you. I know I seem to be speaking in riddles, but I do understand Einstein beyond what he seems to be have been able to see. The universe is weird. You do not know anything, you don’t understand anything. You are there with all these paradoxes, you cannot make sense out of it all. Despite all that, it is the way maths and physics can explain it. And as long as you can see it mathematically and that it makes sense, nobody cares about: but look, I see that, how can this be true then? The extension of Einstein’s theories says it all, it is not down to me now to explain how can this be possible. It is, and that is it. Now we just have to deal with it. Since Einstein, science has always been out of reach of common sense, and Quantum Mechanics has certainly not helped it either. Science sees something that our brain cannot see. And that is the problem. Our brain’s interpretation of the universe... what you see is not what it is. I cannot explain it better than that.

That is an interesting question. I will answer it using philosophy, which I believe never answered anything. There is no distance. Is there space? But what is your definition of space? Does it not imply distance? Therefore your definition of space is wrong. There is a real true space, but I am afraid to say that it is of a different nature of what you always thought it to be.

_______________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

 

ANYTHING BEYOND THIS POINT MIGHT NOT REFLECT WHAT I THINK NOW AND IS MORE LIKELY TO CONTRADICT THINGS I ALREADY SAID. I KEPT IT HERE BECAUSE IT HELPS TO VISUALIZE MY IDEAS AND IT SHOWS YOU MY REASONING FROM THE START, THE PATHS I FOLLOWED THAT LEAD ME TO THESE CONCLUSIONS.

 

 

Universal Theory of Relativity

 

Where Time, Distance, Size, Speed, Speed of Light and the Universe are all relative

 

The Universal Theory of Relativity (by RM) - TIME IS RELATIVE, SPEED IS RELATIVE, DISTANCE IS RELATIVE, THE UNIVERSE IS RELATIVE

By all means, put it on your website, including this e-mail.

_______________________________________________________________

Dear Aquamarine Sea Water,

 

I like the fact, for now, that I don't have the slightest idea of where you are in the world and what is your name, even your degreee of shrinkage relative to me. It's like Quantum Mechanics, I am talking to a human being out there, but I don't know who, where he is, and at which velocity he his going. As far as I know, you do not exist because I would need to do a measurement. At this time I suppose you exist in the sum of all the possible locations you could be, since before I do any measurement, nothing has a determined state.

 

I will try to be concise and see if I can add to it later on during the week. I am at work, I started answering yesterday your last e-mail, at work, but then got carried away, wrote on paper at lunch time, and now I will have to struggle again this weekend writing it back to the computer instead of working on my thesis. (It was much easier at the time of Einstein, he could just write his letter down and send them... but did he keep a copy of all his letters? And you only get an answer something like 20 days later, without counting the motivation needed to write a letter, I never did, yet I send at least 25 e-mails a day (counting work as well)).

 

But this morning we are going to the race track, all of the office, invitation from our printer company. So I am going to spend at least £150 British Pounds on some James Bond's Horses drugged with steroids and I am going to enjoy myself, even whilst I will be losing everything (the wonderful world of probabilities calculated to the precise amount I will be losing to make the game unworthy!)

 

See below...

E-mail: rm@crownedanarchist.com

_______________________________________________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Roland Michel Tremblay <rm@crownedanarchist.com>
To: event00horizon@hotmail.com <event00horizon@hotmail.com>
Cc: rm@crownedanarchist.com <rm@crownedanarchist.com>
Date: Friday, August 27, 1999 07:41
Subject: Nobody understands me, they all think I am crazy and incapable of understanding anything!

 http://www.crownedanarchist.com/relativity.htm

_____________________________

Things to Prove

1-RELATIVITY OF DISTANCE (to which extent is that true?)

Can distance really shrink and things getting smaller instead of just moving in the distance? (Well, it is not enough to say that things only shrink instead of moving because we have observed them shrink like pancakes and see them turned around. Seeing these objects like that is insufficient. Shrinking stick metre, is it really shrinking proportionally when taking speed, or when moving in the distance? Because it shrinks when going fast, but gets back to normal when coming to a stop. That is a critical point. Only speed here seems to change something, not moving in the distance or being in the distance. It seems that we are all living in our own bubble or frame of reference all moving or going at a certain speed. And depending on that speed we see you far away or close to us. Nothing to do with distance or moving away. We are all stuck at the same point.

2- RELATIVITY OF SPEED OF LIGHT

Can the speed of light be only a barrier in ones own frame of reference? (Speed of light being always constant, how, why?) (Space (distance) and time being relative, speed must also be relative). If you calculate speed using time and distance and both are relative and even part of the same thing, then you are doing something wrong. You have been mislead in thinking the speed of light was constant when it is not. It is only constant in your own frame of reference. Well, in every frame of reference in fact. Light will always be constant then, wherever you are and whatever the speed you are going at. All right, that much Einstein knew. Now, does that really mean that from another frame of reference you cannot go faster than 300,000 km/s? And why that speed, why that number? Why should there be a limit in the speed you can achieve just because you happen to always calculate the speed of light to be that? It does not make any sense, there is no link between the speed you can achieve yourself or that particles can achieve and the speed at which you calculate light going at. Einstein's link is that matter being the same as energy, and light being energy, not only light travel at C, but the whole universe too, all matter. But then, how do you explain that light comes to you and show you something that in  reality is not? The reason you happen to reach always 300,000 km/s when calculating the speed of light has something to do with space and time being relative to your frame of reference. (That much seems possible...) (I need to study which equation(s) make it impossible to go faster than the speed of light.)

Don't forget that Einstein uses Lorentz contraction equations only to calculate the difference between where a ship is compared with where we see it. Not because the ship has shrunk and is somewhere else. So even that equation is not valid. It is still just there to explain what you see, but not what is. I believe that once Einstein did his calculation using the equation with Lorentz equation, the object observed is still not where the equation says it is.

3- THE MISSING MASS (what could prove my theories?)

The missing mass is not missing, mass being relative we are mislead in thinking it is missing. It depends on your speed and frame of reference. Can the missing mass of the universe really be due to the fact that atomic structures are as massive as stars? But because of our frame of reference we cannot see that? I need to find out where the idea of the missing mass comes from in the first place. But let's not forget that perhaps there is no need for more mass to explain what we see, because what we see is wrong anyway, it only exists from our relative point of view.

4- LAWS OF GRAVITY REWRITTEN for both infinities

weight = gravitational force = calculated in Newtons = changes when you move away or get closer to an astronomical body

mass = inertia of an object, energy needed to move an object = mass changes when...

Not distance, but speed affects the size (and running of time) of something (actually, gravity does that... gravity defines space and time). If something goes faster, it will affect an object much less than interacting objects going at the same speed. Gravity depends on how shrunk an object is, how fast it is going at. We have got the mass of objects wrong. Whether it is small or large, it has a different mass than we think. mass is relative too. Gravity at the moment is considering how massive is an object and how it affects other objects. (I have to go and study gravity equations of Einstein). What I mean to say here is that...

5- UNIFIED FIELD THEORY - Unifying Quantum Mechanics and Relativity

If the very large is the very small, then it is not a question of uniting Quantum Mechanics with Relativity, but applying one of them to the whole. I believe that Relativity is only good for when we are stationary and calculating from one point of view (like on Earth for example). I believe that Quantum Mechanics is also applicable to the very large once we go faster than the speed of light.

 6- COMMUNICATIONS - What we call distance is only a perception. Things are not in the distance, they actually just shrink from our point of view. In which case, a shrunk radio emitter on Mars should not take 3 minutes to send a signal. We should be able to pick it up instantly and this is something else that could prove my theory. The emitter is sending a signal on a certain frequency. On Earth we have a receiver receiving that signal but I guess only if listening at the right frequency. Well, if everything is located at a same point, there should be another way to send that signal and receiving it that should be instant.

At the moment a signal travels at the speed of light and light travels at 300,000 km/s. So, according to the fact that distance is relative, that speed is relative, that speed of light is relative, then the speed at which that signal travel is relative to us, to our frame of reference. According to my theories, we should be able to pick up any signal sent in the universe whenever it has been broadcast and from wherever it has been broadcast. I do not believe it needs to be sent any differently, but it needs to be received differently. And it has something to do with the speed at which it is listened to or processed. If there was any way to pinpoint a signal sent across the galaxy, record it, making it play much faster, but really much faster, we should be able to listen to it instantly. Not only the frequency is involved, but something else. The speed, and... and... A microscope is the shortcut we use to see a star that is on the other side of the universe. What could be the instrument that would make it possible to hear a signal broadcast on the other side of the galaxy, what is the possible shortcut for this?

When you look through a microscope, you see something very far from here. If someone on that electron was sending a signal, it would take forever to reach Earth. Still, we could see that someone sending that signal, there must be a way to receive that signal then and there. (Mirrors is what we use to see that far, mirrors reflecting on mirrors, that is the solution!!! Send your signal through the mirror that reflects via other mirrors like a microscope and you should be able to get that signal instantly!) If you have a telescope powerful enough to see on Mars, you should have the chance to see a message transmitted on Mars before it reaches Earth. Or is it that the image you see of Mars is really past already? I mean, what you see in the microscope, those atoms, they are already something of the past, it is the time it took for the image to reach you. But then why is it going so fast?  When you look in the sky with a telescope, nothing moves anymore.

You would have to tell your receiver to listen to that specific place (as precise as the best microscope can achieve today), at a specific time. Then identify in one second you recorded (that could equals years when the time difference is adjusted) the exact moment you want to listen to. Then slow the recording a lot, but really a lot. Then you could have something. Do you slow it or do you make it go faster? Well, a microscope is a shortcut, you see things going faster. These things are frozen for us in real space when you look at the sky. But since you are now using a shortcut to record the signal, you must slow it down, because it would be going way to fast. You could record the whole history of a galaxy by filming it with a microscope...

My problem here is that I do not know how actually a receiver receive a signal. Especially a receiver receiving digital messages sent using light. If such a message was sent from an electron, a microscope recording the image could decipher the signal. One second would equal years of recordings. Now, how do we transpose such a device in here, for practicality. From Mars, how do we get a message instantly? Is it just that we need to point a microscope toward Mars and adjust the speed of the signal, slowing it in relation with the distance of Mars and Earth?

I do not think that by looking at Mars with a Telescope there is any way to get a signal going faster than normal. We are not using the shortcut of a microscope. Could it be easier and faster to catch a signal sent from an electron via a microscope than getting a signal from Mars?

7) Propulsion - Transport

At the moment we have propellant getting out of a rocket making it move forward. The last UFO programme I saw  showed an engineer who supposedly worked on recovered flying saucers at S4, a military kind of base somewhere in America. He was saying that the propulsion system of the flying saucers was three small pipe amplifying gravity. One of those gravity amplifier is used to lift the saucer in the air and the two others are going at the front of the saucer, causing a small gravity distortion, a distortion of space and time, causing like a hill going down, and the saucer just behave like if it was always falling, responding to the small gravity distortion always created just in front of the ship. This apparently cause a distortion of space and time around the ship which makes it look weird, going at impossible speed in a very short amount of time or do 90 degrees turns. Those flying are producing lots of energy and in close proximity you can feel electricity in the air, is it using magnets? Electromagnetism.

Well, perhaps we cannot go anywhere fast in the Universe using are past date rockets that still take 3 months to go to Mars according to the last news, but tempering with those flying saucers for over 50 years now, I would think we have discovered new ways of moving in the universe or we re just about to. Distortion of space in time, same theory behind the warp drive in Start Trek. We are getting there. Creating lots of energy using annihilation of matter with antimatter? I am not sure. Why would those flying saucer turns on themselves like a turbine, coils turning in order to produce a magnetic field? Could it ever be strong enough a field to move the ship in the air and probable make it go at incredible speed?

What interest me is how malleable space and time are. Again, what we see is not what we get. Whatever moves in the distance and that we see, we only see it that way because it has been using rudimentary ways of moving around. Thrust. As soon as we start playing with gravity, spacetime distortions, reality becomes different and changes. The future propulsion system, whether or not that guy was really doing back engineering on found flying saucers or not, could be using gravity amplifiers and could be via distortion of spacetime.

What interest me and I forgot to say in the last paragraph is (difficult to concentrate when you write in the train bringing you to work in central London) is that... according to my theory you never really move but the rest of the universe around you kind of move according to your own perceptions (which are deceitful). So I was thinking about why would we need to get out stuff out of us in order to move? I guess we can forget the thing turning at the back of a boat or the wheels of a car or train in order to move. These are only occurrences of an object moving on a body. In the air, planes, and in space a rocket, that is what is really the question. So now we do not have to get propellant out of the ship in order to move, we can have something pushing us, like solar waves. But we could also just distort space and time in order to move. So we are closer again from my Shrinking

Theory and Universal Theory of Relativity. Because a direct consequence of my ideas is that moving around in the universe should be quite different from what we have been used to. And these UFO reports, true or false, show possible ways of propulsion that make more sense to me than the ones in use. I predict that quite a revolution is awaiting us very soon, and for us it will not be about telecommunications alone.

8) Quantum Mechanics, Particles that are at many places at the same time

I haven't read anything yet on Quantum Mechanics, so what I am saying next is more a question to explore than what I think.

I think that the whole way we use to observe small particles is wrong. Because it is based on light, and light limits what really is. I think that at a certain point in time, a particle will be in as many different locations as there are frames of reference in the universe (points of view). But from the frame of reference of that particle, that particle will only exist once, and will be at one place only. There is only one particle at only one place, like there is only one Earth at one place.

The thing is, if you are going at a certain speed and that your time rate and stick meter are of a certain value, that particle for you will be at a different location than for someone going at a different speed, located somewhere else and who have a different time rate and stick meter to measure where that particle is. Meaning, that particle can exist in as many locations as there are observers or possible points of view, but will still only exist once, and there will be only one particle at any given time, the one of the actual frame of reference of the particle itself. So, different observers in the universe going at different speed could see the Earth at different locations, not where we, ouselves, see it.

So, why is it that our little experiments confirm that one particle actually crosses many openings at the same time in order to reach the registering box that registers many entries for that same particle?  It is because of the limitation of our measuring tool. Our way of measuring the reality of a particle is so bad, that we are recording many different points of view at the same time. Meaning, we think we are making one measurement for one given micro-second, but in fact, we don't realise that there is still too much time in that micro-second. Many different points of view or frames of reference are taken into account, not only one as we always thought.

I think that an experiment about good measurements and bad measurements, might prove my point. By measuring better, we should have less entries registered from one particle.

The problem is also that this particle might in fact be going much faster than the speed of light. And what we observe is based on light, and gets to us at that speed. So, without knowing that fact, we thought that this particle was at many places at the same time. The reality of it is that this particle is going so fast, so many times faster than the speed of light, that we see it at many places at the same time. I think that if a particle goes at 8 times the speed of light, we should register 8 different entries for that particle going from point A to point B. And why we see it passing both through door A and B, is because depending on one particular point of view, a frame of reference, it will seem that the particle is going through A or B. 

I hope you understand what I mean here. If not, well, at least I do. So ask me more questions. Don't forget, English is a second language for me, so I don't exactly say what I mean. Which makes thing much more difficult. A bit like relativity.

9) Matter becoming energy and vice versa

Considering that my Universal Relativity theory states that particles are going much faster than the speed of light, is it possible that a particle going faster than the speed of light is impossible for us to see? And that as soon as this particle goes slower than the speed of light suddenly we see it? Therefore, it is not that matter can become energy and that energy can become matter. It is just that there is an equivalence between them, and that is where it ends. Matter is only seen if it goes slower than the speed of light. Otherwise it is beyonf our point of view, beyond our reach to see. We can still calculate the energy of that matter, but no longer the matter. But that matter still exists, and is part of the missing mass of the universe. It is just that we cannot see it.

_________________________________

The Shrinking Theory

Main 12 points of my theory

• RÉSUMÉ + 12 Main Points

Please print and read on your own time. Everything is here on this page... and is quite long, though highly interesting. If you get any idea from this page, to develop your own theories of the Universe for example, have the decency to mention me and where it comes from. Make sure we can trust each other, it will encourage all these genius out there who hides all their greatest discoveries because they worries someone else might take credit for it.