philosophy of theories of relativity.

E=MC2 the greatest mathematical blunder of the 20th century.

please respect my opinion and philosophical stand point to this mathematical dilemma, i am open to any reasonable discussion around my philosophy of this equation, and the doors opened by a greater variable explanation of relativity.

let's put this into simple terms before i completely destroy this theory of relativity, the fastest thing in the universe is the speed of light represented by C in the equation, supposedly a constant speed, or the constant of the universe.

so nothing is faster than the speed of C, except energy which is at CxC!

so basically by multiplying the number by itself we have an impossible speed and therefore an impossible equation as it is supposed to explain everything.

so let's look at this as a theory of everything, and add in the true equation E=MV (energy=mass multiplied by variable(s)).

as C=constant we can change our value of C to simplify the equation remembering that the value of C is always the maximum speed of the universe.

so we have an energy to work out with E=MC2, E=?, M=1, C=100.

so energy is equal to 1x100x100=10,000.

obviously as 100 is the maximum speed detonation or some other variable must be applied to gain anything else at this point, therefore as the dictionary states;

'Relativity 1. the fact or state of being relative. 2 physics [this is E=MC2 area of focus] a (special theory of relativity) a theory based on the principle theory that all motion is relative and that light has constant velocity, regarding space-time as a four-dimensional continuum, and modifying previous conceptions of geometry. b (general theory of relativity) a theory extending this to gravitation and accelerated motion.'

light has a constant velocity, and therefore does not even have any supposed acceleration or deceleration periods.

so anyone who knows anything about our universe will also know that those who believe in E=MC2, have a future destruction, or ending this is supposedly around 15 billion years from now, again another sign of inferior math's is how they shrink 1,000,000,000,000 or 1 billion to 1,000,000,000 or 1 thousand million or capitalistic billion, greed based acquisition of language as well as wealth.

so under the description of relativity, we find the word continuum, which means our universe if under the language restrictions placed by correct or accurate use means our universe has no future ending predictable.

so as we have the speed of light as a maximum, and we multiply it by itself to get impossibility, and we have a predicted ending for the universe, these two basic faults make Einstein and every supposed mathematician to have followed him erroneous.

I can give you the philosophy of how Einstein erred when he spoke to the infinite dreamer who Einstein credited all genius to, at our beginning we had only 1, from 1 came 2, from 2 came 4, from 4 came 8, from 8 came 16, this is a basic foundation for preparing to calculate infinity, which E=MC2 must be capable of doing or this part of relativity being the infinite source is forgotten.

Now from that foundation we can start to multiply on an infinite scale;

infinity is equal to infinity to the power of infinity infinitely.

this is the basic philosophy of nothing or paradox theory of relativity with creation theory included, which is something i can get into later, as this is beyond some scientists on Earth at present with possibly the M-Theorists who accept light has variable speeds, as our leading founders of E=MC2 as a blunder.

Those who know M-Theory, from basic observations of a simple glass prism in good sun light in England i was able to extrapolate that red is the slowest, yellow second speed and blue the fastest under the 3 secondary light sources, these are contained in white groups which are also contained in black, so a 5 scale speed of light would be black fastest, white second and then as white is broken down into the supposed primary colours of blue, yellow and red.

I make black my chosen fastest as black is the absorption of all colour so a more realistic basic colour of infinity.

so back to our 1-2-4-8-16 on the true infinity scale, 1 -2 = 2, 2 - 4 = 16, 4 - 8 = 256, 8 - 16 = 65,536 and so on.

this can be repeated at greater scales also, whereby we predict a step or more, thusly under one predicted step we would have it as; 1 - 2 = 4, 4 - 16 = 65,536, obviously multiplying infinity out from a base value of 1 in stages incrementally.

those who are aware, if you place 1 grain of rice on the first square on a chess board, and double the number each square, you will not have enough rice (supposedly) on earth to fill the last square, that is the first scale of calculating infinity, which is obviously inferior than calculus which is what the second theory of calculating infinity is based upon, the third scale is taking leaps in calculus instead of the gradual infinite curve scale..

Now for a better theory of relativity, and this one is included or backed up by M-Theory (String Theory uses E=MC2 so is also buffoon territory, while M-Theory accepts that the speed of light is a variable depending on the colour of the light particles) E=MV.

Energy = Mass x Variables, as already covered earlier, the variables are calculated using calculus generating further mathematical equations, if M-Theory doesn't already use E=MV or some such variation then they will also be erroneous with the String Theorists.

another point of note for the mathematicians, you are chasing infinitives on the micro scale and infinities on the macro scale, every correct mathematical equation therefore must end with a sphere and/or orbits of spherical nature, at any point you can clearly identify a given shape with identifiable sides you have a failed calculation.

look at the universe then for my obvious evidence.

a galaxy is a sphere of light trapped in a black hole, from this we have a disk in 2D format in a 3D universe, from this orb/disk we find many more orbs, these orbs we call stars, when we go into these orbs we find more orbs around the orb, some of these orbs have orbs upon them, macro scale.

micro scale, we have the atom, this is an orb [this is in orbit with either a star or planet] with orbs, inside the primary orb we find more orbs, that is the limit of our current technology when actually zooming into the micro, due to inability to safely split open a nucleus of an atom. now with this there are other experiments, all experiments are created when we send spheres at high speeds, and we find more spheres when we actually find anything, sometimes they appear elongated due to the current technology of camera or light absorption.

this is what i thought about a month or so ago when i decided to self teach mathematics, i chose to look at E=MC2 and cried laughing straight away, sorry.

i would like to add, i am entirely self educated, i am a 40 year old man, who suffered a brain injury 12 years ago, and 4 years ago managed to start reading again, and so have studied a little over the past four years, i am now keen to see how advanced my mind is from a reincarnative type event survived.

this is no joke, E=MC2 is seriously a misinterpretation of the philosophy of chasing infinities and infinitives, macro and micro cosmology, as Einstein said he got the information from the infinite dreamer, this therefore must have been in philosophical format or it would not be a foundation thought..

if you think of it like this, we have a point zero for the big bang to hold any theory, and so far all theories agree we had some form of big bang creating everything from nothing, which when you keep on philosophical terms is a definite paradox, so hence paradox creation theory also contained in E=MV.

so from point zero we have to get to a point 1, or 2 as we now recognise a start point to be either a 1 or a 0, 0 for it was nothing, but 1 as we tend to start with 1 when following a step diagram philosophy. with the earlier multiplications we multiplied infinity on a very basic scale, we were supposing infinity was not conscious and to be honest i think this is Darwin's error on his theory of evolution also, he mentions the mind in evolution and then straight away leaves it out, at this point i thought he actually had it, consciousness generating reincarnation, therefore carrying a previous genetic diagram of a potential deformity leading to evolving the species, seems an obvious alteration to random design, to intelligent random design, after all he turned to god and gave up in the end.

so this time we say infinity is conscious, we now have a base thought in which to make calculations based upon the number of fragments of conscious concrete mind type explosion [i have read some philosophies of occultistical studies (philosophy, psychology, history, politics, religion, economics, commerce, law, with string theory and physics only via documentaries (i have further studies to add to this in due course, mathematics and physics is what i am looking at now))], i add this now as it is relevant to the concrete mind version of paradox creation theory which i will gladly discuss sensibly with those interested later.

so with consciousness infinity can calculate with any method to come up with a base infinity scale to start the expansion mind set for an intelligent conscious big bang explosion, let us say infinity at its first series of calculations decided it needed one centrillion (1 with 600 0's)as its first base vale.

so we would now have as our infinity base calculation, one centrillion to the power centrillion to the power centrillion as our first explosive calculation to begin evolution and creation, this therefore generates an area of controllable space for the big bang to continuously expand into, generating a continuum which is needed for the theory of relativity..

now as all religions have some form of story hidden or in plain texts of someone trying to steal creation, this leads to the belief of a simple paradox creation first, being in a dream format ending with the death of the creator in the big bang, splintering into conscious complex paradoxes, but reincarnating as an equal if paradise is found, or a wrathful or just god if found in hell, sorry for straying, trying to point out this is a theory of everything as E=MC2 is supposed to be.

so it is plausible to see the big bang as two ignition points when religion is taken into physics, creating a better metaphysics subject, as E=MC2 claimed it did, as i said, my E=MV does this, my primary variable to sustain conscious life, is immortal conscious reincarnation.

this cannot be philosophically denied, so remains as a perfect philosophy (where did your consciousness come from if you have an argument against this) if you can philosophically follow me through the dilemma of E=MC2 as erroneous and E=MV as the only viable option at present.

so we have a potential big bang of a loving nature which may have avoided pain for all simple paradoxes involved in the initial ignition of creation, and then shortly afterwards we have an attack creating a potential for a second big bang which is filled with anti matter, or also could be called anti paradoxes as complex paradox creation is what the big bang must be.

personally with consciousness involved with the creation, i doubt anti matter would have been needed, as infinite consciousness is nothing (at least that's my stand point so far, i'm interested in discussing many of my points maturely), nothing could make mater without the need for anti mater, or how did it create the matter in the first place?, both needed to be created from nothing, so one was probably not needed or why are they destructive together?

now this is where my open agreement with the string theory version of the big bang ended, as they ignored the fact light must have an acceleration speed, which they completely refuse to accept, they showed five versions of galaxies i think it was, four failed and one was like a swas-sticka (this was Hitler's belief on the shape of the Milky Way) design, so as Hitler's idea of a four pronged galaxy has been proven erroneous with our two pronged sweeping spiral galaxy we know we live in today, so to me string theory is a Hitler error, the only working galaxy is nowhere to be seen in over 200 million galaxies in the known universe, so how does it prove anything?

here is my big gap, i can agree with star formations leading to the super giant class early stars as being the galaxies of today when they exploded, creating many big bang type creation events, which could prove a teaching consciousness to all those worthy, and going by the number of probably living stars in the universe means our creator shared everything in death and hopefully life too when the explosion finishes, as that is another paradox of a conscious creation. we can actually be in a state of conscious existence preceding creation as per Sartre' Being and Nothingness.

so i have ideas around the micro beginning of the universe and i have the macro in another similar explanation due to the nature of the repeating sphere patterns all over creation, which leads back to the micro cosmos.

as i have very basic math's at my disposal (GCSE C grade, also this is my only qualification from school, a late study really) i would like to enter philosophical discussions around the atom, and more interestedly in how manipulation of the orbits of the atom could potentially change the qualities of the atom, i may be ahead of our technology here, as we can't enter the nucleus yet, can we manipulate the orbits (electrons) safely?


regards

martin.