Dacia Iluministă

Now we are going to undertake something radically ambitious: to attempt to explain Einstein’s special theory of relativity in a reasonably simple form. You can’t expect to understand the universe unless you have some sort of feel for what Einstein said. We will be providing a unique interpretation of his theory, revealing the underlying reality that he missed.

Einstein uses little more than high school mathematics, but don’t be deceived: his equations are awesome in their implications. Even if you find the equations trivial, you will never find the interpretation of the equations trivial. They truly reveal the Mind of God.

Einstein’s great achievement was to place on a firm scientific and mathematical footing what mystics had long known, but hadn’t been able to express in well-defined terms. The beauty of mathematics is that it can be absolutely precise. With an astonishingly successful theory such as quantum mechanics, no one disagrees with the mathematics. What they argue over is how to interpret the mathematical equations, to describe what the equations mean in terms of reality. So, although mathematics can’t unambiguously provide all of the answers – due to the difficulty in translating mathematics into non-mathematical language – it can provide a uniquely accurate framework in which to attempt to provide the answers. Words, intrinsically, do not have sufficient accuracy; only equations do.

Language is an imprecise tool. It’s all too easy to misunderstand what someone has said. Words are loaded with ambiguity. Mathematics provides precision, but it does not provide unambiguous meaning. We have to apply that final layer, but at least mathematics gives us a platform with which we can all agree, even if we disagree over the next steps. In contrast, conventional religions provide no commonly accepted platform – do Muslims, Jews and Christians worship the same God, as some of them claim, or three utterly different gods, as others claim? It is impossible to define anything in conventional religion and impossible to reach any rational conclusions. That’s why “faith” plays such a critical role. “Believing” is what you do when you haven’t a clue how to analyze something mathematically.

But even scientists and mathematicians can have problems with reasoning. Even they can succumb to “common sense” that blinds them to the truth. Brilliant scientists, for example, refuse to accept dimensionless existence where physical dimensions shrink to zero and time stops, and infinite quantities which they believe would somehow tear nature apart or render it incomprehensible. Yet, over and over again, the mysteries of life are seen to revolve around zero and infinity, which are just the flip sides of each other. But while science recoils from them in horror, modern mathematics takes them in its stride (although, historically, even mathematicians found them far more problematic than ordinary mathematical concepts).

It’s often thought that mathematics deals with the hypothetical and physics with the real, but one thing is becoming relentlessly clearer: mathematics, the queen of science, is more real than physics. Physics is deceptively real i.e. it is more closely associated with our common sense, with the evidence of our senses, and less with true reality. It is the other way around with mathematics. When physics comes closest to true reality, as in relativity theory and quantum mechanics, it is astonishingly mathematical and counter-intuitive. Common sense simply vanishes – it can’t help you at all in relation to relativity and the quantum world. If you can’t get beyond your common sense, you will never understand these subjects. Why haven’t physicists cottoned on yet? It is mathematics, not physics, that defines the laws of nature.

In other books in this series, we discussed how quantum particles are so astoundingly small, so much smaller than any human mind could ever conceive, so close to being dimensionless, to being “nothing”, that they cannot be properly understood unless it is recognised that they flicker between dimensional and dimensionless existence. We showed that infinity rears its head spectacularly in the case of black hole singularities and the Big Bang singularity, neither of which can be fully understood by physicists since singularities involve division by zero, thereby producing a result of infinity, at which point the laws of physics are said to collapse.

Now it’s time to discuss another example of zero and infinity appearing in science, perhaps the most bewildering and profound example of all since, paradoxically, it involves an entity that we recognise as finite. With this entity, zero, the finite and the infinite come together in an astonishing way that may define the nature of existence. We are talking about one of the most bizarre phenomena of all – the speed of light.

The unique status of the speed of light is the centrepiece of Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Although the mathematics of the speed of light can be described with tremendous accuracy, the “meaning” of light speed defies any straightforward interpretation. It might be said that all of the problems that bedevil fundamental physics flow from a failure to comprehend light.

Einstein’s theory says nothing less than that all photons are, in their frame of reference, outside space and time. They don’t experience the passing of time and they don’t experience the traversing of any distances. The universe, for photons, is a mystical dimensionless point. Even if there were an infinite number of photons, they would all inhabit this inconceivable singularity beyond the reach of time and space.

Can you begin to see? The realm of light, as described by Einstein’s supremely well tested equations, is astonishingly similar to what we have described as the r = 0 dimensionless domain: the realm of the mental. Immediately, the profoundest of questions arises. Are light and thought the same thing? Are photons, when considered from the correct perspective, mental rather than physical? When the sun shines on us, are we being bathed in the “thoughts” of the sun as well as its light? If photons do not experience space and time, and they do not have any mass, how else would you characterise them except as some sort of mind-like entities?

Yet no scientist would ever claim that photons are mental. Why not? Isn’t that what Einstein’s equations hint at? How can photons be real, physical entities if an infinite number of them can inhabit a timeless, massless domain of zero size? Descartes famously defined thinking substance (“res cogitans”) as non-physical, without extension. What would he have made of photons? In their own frame of reference they too are without extension.

Scientists don’t ponder such questions. They are too scared of where this train of thought leads – to religion, to souls, to God. Rather than take a God’s-eye-view of the universe, they lock themselves into safe, common sense territory. They ignore how the world looks to a photon and focus on how the world looks to us. And thus they have turned away from understanding how the cosmos truly works.

The reality is that human beings are children of two domains – the dimensional and the dimensionless, r > 0 and r = 0. The attempt by science to restrict us to the r > 0 domain, the material domain of solid objects with mass, is the most catastrophic misjudgement imaginable, and actually refuted by science itself which consistently points to the inescapable reality of dimensionless existence.

It is that fateful error that has sundered science from religion. It is that fateful error that must be corrected to get the human race back on track.

******

The key equations of Einstein’s special theory of relativity are known as Lorentz transformations. They provide a mathematical means for calculating how mass, distance and time are related between different frames of reference.

In terms of the special theory of relativity, any observer moving at constant speed in a straight line can consider himself at rest and that everything else is moving relative to him. Any such observer, no matter what speed he is moving at, will always get the same answer when he measures the speed of light.

Relativity has astounding consequences. If one observer holding a 30 cm ruler is travelling at 99.9% of light speed, a stationary observer would observe that same ruler to be much shorter than if he himself were holding it. But since the person travelling at 99.9% light speed can consider himself stationary then the same is true the other way around. So which of them actually has a shortened ruler? The answer is that neither does and both do. Each of them has a 30 cm ruler from their own point of view. If they came together, they would each agree that they had a 30 cm ruler. It’s only when they’re moving at near light speed with regard to each other that they start to radically disagree about the length of the ruler.

So, is length contraction a real phenomenon or just an elaborate illusion? If both observers are holding 30 cm rulers, and both agree about that when they are together, surely it’s ridiculous to say that their rulers shrink relative to each other when they are moving apart at high speed. But that’s exactly what happens. “Reality” changes according to the speed you’re travelling at. Rulers that measure a certain length in one frame of reference measure a completely different length in a second frame of reference when viewed from the first frame of reference, and the effect gets more pronounced as the relative difference in speed of the two frames of reference increases. Isn’t that astounding? Common sense tells us that things have definite, fixed dimensions: relativity says they don’t. Physicist David Bohm wrote, “The new order and measure introduced in relativity theory implies new notions of structure in which the idea of a rigid body can no longer play a key role. Indeed, it is not possible in relativity to obtain a consistent definition of an extended rigid body, because this would imply signals faster than light.”

All of this is true except in one domain: the unique frame of reference of the speed of light itself. Here, all rulers always measure zero distance. No such thing as a 30 cm ruler is physically possible in this frame of reference. All observers, no matter what speed they’re travelling at, will always agree that a hypothetical ruler being carried at light speed will always measure zero distance. That result is built into Einstein’s equations. Everything is measured with respect to the speed of light except the speed of light, which is measured with respect to itself, making it a unique reference frame. This is an example of one of the great enigmas of existence: self-reference. So often, paradoxes reduce to situations of self-reference. When a Cretan says, “All Cretans are liars,” is his statement true, false, or undecidable? Godel’s famous Incompleteness Theorem is the logical consequence of the enigma of self-reference.

In a self-referential frame of reference, zero and infinity come to the fore. So, all distances between photons are zero, their mass is zero, and time passes infinitely slowly i.e. time has stopped. And consider this paradox: given that speed = distance divided by time, if time never passes then no matter what distance is covered, the time elapsed is always zero, hence we are dividing by zero, hence the speed of a photon always equals infinity, in its own frame of reference. But equally, since all distances experienced by a photon are always zero, then no matter what time elapses, the speed of a photon will always be zero. So, what is the speed of a photon in its own frame of reference? Is it zero or infinity, or somehow neither and both? Is it simultaneously all possible speeds from zero to infinity? Such is the enigma of light speed. The mystery is compounded when we add in the result employed by Einstein that the speed of light in a vacuum is finite and invariant for all observers in any frame of reference other than that of light itself.

Self-reference continues to baffle scientists, philosophers, mathematicians and logicians. They have all failed to understand why. It’s because self-reference is the province of zero and infinity, the two numbers that cause conventional “laws” to collapse. A computer would go into an infinite loop trying to solve a problem of selfreference. It would never halt. In such a system, everything outside the self-reference is reduced to zero – it does not exist. It is nothing. Over and over again, the mystery of existence reduces to the mystery of infinity and zero. Everything that is most profound is contained in these supremely mysterious numbers.

We ourselves are units of self-reference. That’s what the “self” is. We live permanently inside our own minds. Strictly speaking, we can never prove the existence of anything other than our own thoughts. “I think therefore I am” could equally well be stated as: “Only my thoughts exist. There is nothing other than my thoughts. All of ‘reality’ is but my thought, created by my thought.” We break out of the infinite loop of self-reference – known philosophically as solipsism (from Latin solus “alone” + ipse “self”, meaning the theory that the self is all that one truly knows to exist), by assuming that an external world exists and that other minds exist. But we can never prove this.

If the centre of our existence – our self – is an infinite loop in some sense then how can it ever die? Sure, on its infinite journey it can take on many forms – different outward appearances (the self as phenomenon), but it can never perish as it is in itself (the self as noumenon). It is an immortal, transcendental self.

Zero and infinity, the flip sides of each other, are at the heart of existence. Everything else is defined with respect to them. The finite can exist only in relation to the infinite. That is the key to comprehending the cosmos. The self – a unit of self-reference – is born of infinity and, like energy, can be neither created nor destroyed. It endures eternally, as all infinities do. Self-reference in tandem with the universal property of mind cannot help but give rise to selfawareness and consciousness.

Hegel describes the critical event where one unit of self-reference encounters another such unit. At that stage, each is forced to concede that it is not alone, that the universe is not solipsistic. If the universe were solipsistic then one unit of self-reference would be able to control all other units of self-reference since they would be nothing but its own creations. If it can’t control them then it can conclude that a) it is able to create things of which it has no knowledge and over which it has no control (implying a kind of insanity) or b) these things of which it has no knowledge and over which it has no control actually have independent existence i.e. the universe consists of many and not one. So, the unit of self-reference comprehends that it is not alone. And then, as Hegel so brilliantly illustrated, it is plunged into a life or death struggle to avoid being “negated” by this rival. We arrive at the famous master-slave dialectic. Before “death” arrives, one of the units of self-reference submits to the other and becomes the other’s slave. From then on it struggles to be equal to the “master”. The master, meanwhile, has nothing but contempt for the cowardly slave.

The master-slave dialectic goes on every single day in our contemporary world. Every day, the Old World Order remain the masters, and the rest of us remain their slaves. Why? Because we do not have the guts to overthrow them. We are pathetic cowards. Six billion of us; six thousand of them, and yet we do nothing. If that’s not a definition of cowardice, what is?

Do you dream of being an eternal slave? If not, wake up and buckle up. It’s time to fight to be human, to no longer be the master’s slave. The OWO can easily be swept aside. Their wealth can be removed from them by the will of the people and then they will be rendered powerless, like Samson without his hair. What will these six thousand do against six billion? Do you think hedge fund managers will be manning the barricades and grabbing the nearest Kalashnikov?

These people are sustained by the illusion of power (represented by money) not by real power – the ability to personally fight and defeat others in mortal combat. At the dawn of humanity, the most violent men were the masters. They would literally kill you if you dared to fight them. Now the masters are the Wizards of Oz, ruling by tricks and deceptions. They can be defeated by nothing more strenuous than pulling back the curtain. The real horror is this – only the Illuminati are prepared to pull back the curtain. The rest of the human race are terrified. Why? Because if they do draw back that magic curtain – both infinitely heavy and infinitely light – then they will have no choice but to take responsibility for their lives. They will have to be creators rather than followers. They will have to be decision-makers rather those who obey orders. In other words, they will have to look in the mirror and for the first time ask themselves the biggest question of all: is being a slave all they are truly capable of?

Make no mistake, the world economy will temporarily collapse if the OWO are overthrown. That is inevitable since the world economy is theirs, completely defined by them. But if the people have the guts and the merit, they can rebuild it incredibly quickly. Look at two of the world’s greatest powers: Germany and Japan. At the end of WWII, both nations were in ruins, their people horribly traumatized and demoralised. Their economies were destroyed, millions were dead and wounded, the cities had been reduced to smoking rubble, they were under occupation by their enemies. The situation simply could not have looked any bleaker and more desperate. These nations could have sunk into centuries of despair. But they didn’t. The people of both countries were clever, resourceful and talented. They worked incredibly hard and in a matter of years they were back to being leading nations of the world once more. The fall of the OWO will certainly cause economic hardships for a time, but nothing in comparison with what the Germans and Japanese endured and overcame just a few decades ago.

Truly, there is nothing to fear. Just as adversity brought out the best in the German and Japanese people after the war, so it will bring out the best in all of the world’s people when they have no choice but to build the world anew after the end of the OWO’s reign.

******

Consider these remarks about mathematics:

“Mathematics compares the most diverse phenomena and discovers the secret analogies that unite them.” –Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier

“Everything of any importance is founded on mathematics.” –Robert Heinlein

“Mathematics and music are God’s languages. When you speak them…you’re speaking directly to God.” –Rebecca Goldstein

“One cannot understand…the universality of laws of nature, the relationship of things, without an understanding of mathematics. There is no other way to do it.” –Richard Feynman

“I believe that mathematical reality lies outside us, that our function is to discover or observe it, and that the theorems which we prove, and which we describe grandiloquently as our ‘creations,’ are simply the notes of our observations.” –Godfrey Harold Hardy

“The mathematician’s patterns, like those of the painter’s or the poet’s, must be beautiful; the ideas, like the colours or the words, must fit together in a harmonious way.” –Godfrey Harold Hardy

“Obvious is the most dangerous word in mathematics.” –E. T. Bell

“Mathematics as we know it and as it has come to shape modern science could never have come into being without some disregard for the dangers of the infinite.” –David Bressoud
__________

3/8