{"id":5449,"date":"2019-05-05T22:57:46","date_gmt":"2019-05-05T21:57:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/bassdu.mine.bz\/?p=5449"},"modified":"2019-05-05T22:57:46","modified_gmt":"2019-05-05T21:57:46","slug":"academia-iluminista-5","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bassdu.mine.bz\/?p=5449","title":{"rendered":"Academia Iluminist\u0103 (5)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Euler’s Formula and Special Relativity<\/span><\/h2>\n

The Truth Series Book One<\/span><\/h2>\n

Group Study Section 1<\/h2>\n

BY DR. THOMAS STARK, ANOTHER PSEUDONYM FOR MIKE HOCKNEY<\/h3>\n
<\/div>\n
**Introduction**<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
What is the greatest scientific mystery of modern times, the mystery that would stump even Sherlock Holmes? It is this \u2026 why, despite the greatest intellectual effort in scientific history over many decades, involving the most knowledgeable scientists there have ever been, in larger numbers than there have ever been, with the best resources available to them in all of history, including vast, multi-billion-dollar particle accelerators, is science unable to reconcile its two greatest theories: quantum mechanics and Einstein\u2019s general theory of relativity? How is it possible that two theories that have been fantastically successful, and fantastically well verified in all sorts of way, fail to communicate with each other? There must be something drastically wrong with one or both of these theories, or there is something drastically wrong with science itself. Why is science so incapable of figuring out what the problem is? Why is there no scientific research into why science cannot unify its two most successful theories?<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Doesn\u2019t it strike scientists as fundamentally suspicious that they can\u2019t make any substantive progress? Doesn\u2019t it make them call into question the entire basis of their science? How can the two jewels of science be so resistant to being placed in a single crown? How can they be so contradictory? Doesn\u2019t it occur to scientists that something somewhere is seriously amiss with their enterprise? Where is the scientific investigation into why this paradox exists? Why does science refuse to look at itself in the mirror and confront some harsh truths about itself?<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Scientists always say how open-minded they are. Where is the evidence? They seem amongst the most closed-minded people on earth, and most afflicted by groupthink. In religion, heretics are ostracized. In science, heretics have their funds withdrawn. So every practicing scientist is a good conformist and careerist.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The underlying reason for science\u2019s problems is that there is a fundamental ingredient missing from science: the *tertium* *quid* (the third thing), which is the common substructure supporting both quantum mechanics and general relativity. (\u201cTertium quid\u201d refers to an unidentified and more fundamental third element that is present in combination with two known elements.)<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
To understand what science\u2019s tertium quid is, it\u2019s necessary to consider the elementary issue that the vast majority of scientists shy away from, namely what preceded the Big Bang, what *caused* the Big Bang? The reason why scientists refuse to engage with this question is that they imagine they are being drawn into metaphysics, or even \u2013 God forbid! \u2013 religion. They believe they are being yanked out of their comfort zone into the arena of speculation and faith. It has never once occurred to them that science has a *necessary* *rational* *precursor*, i.e. you can\u2019t have science unless an essential prior ingredient is in place.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Science does not exist in its right, as something wholly independent and *sui* *generis*. It is something derived from an older \u2013 indeed *eternal* \u2013 parent. That parent isn\u2019t \u201cGod\u201d. (As if!) It is *mathematics*.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Plato said that the sensible world is an inferior copy of the intelligible world of perfect, immutable, eternal Forms. What he would say today is that the sensible (empirical), scientific world is derived from the intelligible (rational), mathematical world.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Science is contingent and temporal. Mathematics is necessary and eternal. Science deals with truths of fact. Mathematics deal with truths of reason. If you want the *ultimate* *reasons* for things, you have nowhere else to go but mathematics. Because science deals with facts and not reasons (it is preoccupied with \u201chow\u201d rather than \u201cwhy\u201d), it cannot penetrate to the rational layer that explains all theories, including relativity theory and quantum mechanics, and why they succeed or fail. This deficiency is why science breaks down and becomes incoherent. A collection of disparate facts does not and cannot explain reality. Only reasons can explain reality. Moreover, these reasons must be necessary, absolute, infallible, immutable, complete, consistent, perfect and eternal. Only mathematics qualifies.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It\u2019s an extraordinary thing, but every attempt to *rationally* justify the existence of \u201cGod\u201d is much better understood as an attempt to justify the existence of mathematics. It\u2019s not \u201cGod\u201d that creates the universe, it\u2019s math. It\u2019s not God that is perfect, flawless and exists forever, it\u2019s math. It\u2019s not God that is unerring, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing and ubiquitous, it\u2019s math. \u201cGod\u201d is simply the human attempt to turn math into a person to whom humans can emotionally relate. When you strip away all of the human characteristics that have been projected onto God, what remains is pure math. Math, not God, is what guarantees the \u201csoul\u201d and the \u201cafterlife\u201d. The soul is simply an immaterial mathematical singularity, defined by Euler\u2019s Formula (as we shall demonstrate in this book), and the afterlife is inevitable since mathematics and mathematical souls are *eternal*, and reflect the most basic law of energy that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, which logically means that it has existed forever, can never cease to exist, and cannot be created out of nothing, as science bizarrely claims.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Science seems like Abrahamism at times with its claim that something can be produced from nothing at all, like a cosmic rabbit out of a magician\u2019s hat.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Carl Sagan, the patron saint of science, said, \u201cExtraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.\u201d Science never has, and never could, provide any evidence that existence can come from non-existence, hence it is hoist by its own petard. It is making demented claims, while failing to advance any evidence to support them. It therefore qualifies as an irrational quasi-religion. Science has committed itself to a belief that energy *can* be created out of nothing, provided it is energy that overall balances to zero. This flagrantly contradicts the law of the conservation of energy. Wikipedia says, \u201cIn physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant \u2013 it is said to be conserved over time.\u201d Plainly, the total energy is *not* being conserved over time, and the total energy is *not* remaining constant, if energy can be created out of non-existence. If energy can be created out of non-existence, even if it is required to balance to zero, this process should be happening all the time, everywhere, rendering stable existence impossible. Nothing could possibly prevent it.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Self-evidently, we do not live in such a universe.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The fact that science seriously argues that this is possible proves how systemically flawed science is. These flaws are abolished by eternal mathematics, which defines eternal mathematical energy, which can be neither created nor destroyed under any circumstances, and is the root of all energy observed in the contingent, temporal scientific world.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Science could not exist without mathematics. The temporal cannot exist without the eternal to support it. The contingent cannot exist without the necessary. The relative cannot exist without the absolute. Science rejects all three of these eternal truths of reason, while mathematics fully supports them. The biggest question of all for science is this: Was there a *mathematical* *world* before the scientific world \u2026 was the state that preceded and caused the Big Bang a state of pure analytic mathematics? Was mathematics the eternal, necessary world that produced the temporal, contingent Big Bang universe of science?<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In this book, we are going to show you exactly where space and time come from, exactly where matter comes from, exactly what mind is, and exactly what reality is. All we require is one thing, the most powerful tool of analytic mathematics, Euler\u2019s Formula: eix = cos x + i sin x.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
We are going to link this formula to Einstein\u2019s special theory of relativity and show that Einstein\u2019s theory is: a) derived from Euler\u2019s Formula, and b) a catastrophic misinterpretation of the mathematics that underlies relativity theory, stemming from the fact that Einstein supported the scientific philosophy of empiricism and materialism rather than the mathematical philosophy of rationalism and idealism.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
All of the problems of science dissolve when it is understood that mathematics underpins science, that the eternal underpins the temporal, that the necessary underpins the contingent, that the absolute underpins the relative, that the rational underlies the empirical, that the intelligible underlies the sensible, and that mathematical idealism based on dimensionless mathematical atoms (monads) underlies scientific materialism based on dimensional scientific atoms.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Once these truths are understood, it becomes simplicity itself to demonstrate that the mind-matter problem first posed by Descartes is fully resolved by Euler\u2019s Formula. Euler\u2019s Formula leads directly to ontological Fourier mathematics based on monads, with mathematics supplying an eternal frequency domain of mind, and giving rise to a temporal, spatial domain of matter via the extraordinary mathematical properties of sine and cosine waves.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
When the ontology of the Lorentz transformations \u2013 which provide the mathematical core of Einstein\u2019s special theory of relativity \u2013 is applied to Euler\u2019s Formula, we see exactly how Fourier mathematics works, and why it allows the mind to become a rigorous object of mathematics, wholly separate from the human body, and able to survive the death of the human body.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It\u2019s all in the math. To understand reality, you simply have to understand that science is built on top of mathematics. When you get the scientific empiricist irrationalism out of the way, you are left with nothing but rationalist mathematics, which explains *everything* in the universe. There is nothing in existence that cannot be traced back to Euler\u2019s Formula, which has been dubbed *The* *God* *Equation*. We don\u2019t need God to create the universe. We *do*need the God Equation.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
**The** **Singularity**<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Imagine a world without space and time. What is such a world like? It\u2019s like nothing you know, nothing you can easily comprehend. It\u2019s the world of ontological mathematics, the mathematics of existence. When you strip out space and time, you are left with nothing but the bare building blocks of existence, from which space and time are subsequently constructed.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Without space and time, you have nothing to deal with but pre-space and pre-time, which are wholly mathematical. The Big Bang universe of space and time comes from the mathematical Singularity of pre-space and pre-time. Science is nothing but mathematics with space and time added. Without space and time, science reduces to mathematics.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Space and time are defined by *extension*. When you remove space and time, you are necessarily left with the world of *non-extension*. This is a world outside science given that the whole of science is framed by space and time, and makes no sense without them.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Descartes, the first modern philosopher, famously divided the world into two incompatible substances: 1) matter (*res* *extensa* = extended substance), and 2) mind (*res* *cogitans* = thinking substance). Extended things never think, while unextended things do nothing but think.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Descartes said, \u201cI am a being whose whole essence or nature is to think, and whose being requires no place and depends on no material thing.\u201d<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
For Descartes, mind and body were two radically different things. This is the position known as \u201cdualism\u201d. When people imagine their mind or soul surviving death, they are, whether they realize it or not, subscribing to Cartesian dualism. Science, which is more or less synonymous with atheism, vigorously rejects this position. Science is exclusively about materialism, hence insists that mind is a product of matter, in some mysterious way that no scientist has ever explained or defined.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Descartes came close to being the most intelligent human being of all time. He just needed one further insight, which he was actually excellently positioned to make given that he was a mathematical genius as well as a philosophical genius. Mathematics was exactly what he needed to complete his depiction of reality. Indeed, he said, \u201cWith me, everything turns into mathematics. … Mathematics is a more powerful instrument of knowledge than any other that has been bequeathed to us by human agency.\u201d<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The mathematics of Descartes\u2019 day was not sufficiently powerful for him to make the leap to ontological mathematics, i.e. to claim that ultimate reality is mathematical, and that mind and matter are two expressions or modes of mathematics, one being unextended (dimensionless), and the other extended (dimensional). Moreover, the religious climate of the day would not have accommodated such a radical suggestion, unless it were claimed that mathematics was God\u2019s language, through which he executed his creative endeavors and his divine will.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Descartes clearly knew or intuited that there was more knowledge to be revealed when he said, \u201cI hope that posterity will judge me kindly, not only as to the things which I have explained, but also to those which I have intentionally omitted so as to leave to others the pleasure of discovery.\u201d<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Leibniz, another mathematical and philosophical genius, and Descartes\u2019 true successor, ventured even deeper into the world of ultimate rational reality than his illustrious predecessor. To complete their brilliant work, it needed others to continue down the road of mathematics, guided by the philosophy of rationalism. Instead, a catastrophe intervened. The person responsible was the man commonly regarded as the greatest scientist of all time \u2026 *Isaac* *Newton*.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Newton wasn\u2019t a philosopher and wasn\u2019t a rationalist. He was the most contradictory of people: a religious extremist and scientific empiricist rolled into one. He almost certainly suffered from autism, which characterizes many scientists to this day.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Newton added advanced mathematics to the \u201cnatural philosophy\u201d of materialism and empiricism, and thus created modern science. He had nothing to say about the mind, except to deny that it was unextended, as Descartes and Leibniz insisted. He subscribed to the doctrine of the theological philosopher Henry More that the spiritual world was extended, just like the material world (hence, in More\u2019s view, why mind and matter could interact).<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Where Newton succeeded in mathematizing empirical natural philosophy, Descartes and Leibniz failed in mathematizing rational metaphysics. They were on the correct intellectual track, but could not convert their system into a practical and successful enterprise. Newton was on the wrong track but *could* convert his system into something practical and successful \u2026 thanks to mathematics.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Newton succeeded where Descartes and Leibniz failed because he relied on \u201cextended\u201d mathematics, whereas they needed a mathematics of the unextended, a much more difficult mathematical problem, much harder to visualize, and impossible to support via direct observational evidence.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Science is all about extended mathematics involving space, time and matter. What Descartes and Leibniz were trying to do, although they weren\u2019t entirely conscious of it, was to construct an unextended mathematics, dealing with non-space, non-time and mind. Where Newton dealt with physics and matter, Descartes and Leibniz were concerned with metaphysics and mind. Mathematics in their day simply wasn\u2019t developed enough to accommodate mind and metaphysics. Now it is, which means the game has totally changed. It is now possible to fully replace scientific materialism and empiricism with scientific idealism and rationalism. To put it another way, it is now possible to replace Newton\u2019s conception of reality with that of Descartes and Leibniz. This will usher in the ultimate paradigm shift, and completely change how humanity sees reality. Science will become rational and logical rather than empirical and observational, and all of the irrational premises on which current science is built will vanish.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Philosophy, *bad* *philosophy*, is what is holding science back. Science doesn\u2019t even recognize that it *is* a philosophy, such is its lack of self-awareness and intellectual integrity.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Science is emphatically not a rationalist philosophy. It is an empiricist philosophy, hence an irrationalist philosophy. Scientists believe that science is on the side of reason and logic. It\u2019s not. Mathematics is. The reason and logic that appear in science are inherited from mathematics. When science does not use mathematical arguments, it descends into irrational farce. The vast majority of what scientists say about quantum mechanics and cosmology is little short of gibberish, and is provably false.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
**The** **True** **Dualism**<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
When Descartes spoke of the dualism of mind and matter, he failed to grasp a more fundamental truth that is now all too apparent. The true dualism is between physics and metaphysics. Physics is empiricist mathematics that has matter as its subject. Metaphysics is rationalist mathematics that has mind as its subject. Mind versus matter is simply unextended mathematics (metaphysics) versus extended mathematics (physics), mathematics that can\u2019t be visualized versus mathematics that can.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Mathematics is mind. Science is body. Mathematics is rationalism.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Science is empiricism. Mathematics is intelligible. Science is sensible. That\u2019s reality in a nutshell.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Mathematics relies on reason and logic, and can be conducted without any reference to the senses. Science, by contrast, cannot do without the senses, and always privileges them over reason and logic. Religion, meanwhile, relies on the emotions and mystical intuitions, and has no connection with the senses (science), or reason and logic (mathematics).<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Philosopher Gilbert Ryle ridiculed the idea of Cartesian mind as an entity capable of interacting with matter, and dismissed it as a category error, derisively referring to the Cartesian mind as \u201cthe ghost in the machine.\u201d<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
There is no \u201cghost\u201d if mind is mathematics (unextended mathematics), and matter is also mathematics (extended mathematics). There is then nothing to prevent their interaction since they are both aspects of mathematics.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Echoing Ryle, P. C. W. Davies and J. R. Brown wrote a book called *The* *Ghost* *in* *the* *Atom*. But there is no ghost in the atom any more than there is a ghost in a collection of atoms (a body, or a machine). Mathematics is the invisible entity that controls atoms, and mathematics is the most rational thing you can get. There is nothing mystical or ghostly about it. The \u201cghost\u201d \u2013 the entity which is deemed so ridiculous by scientists \u2013 is in fact dimensionless mathematics, the opposite of anything \u201cspooky\u201d.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
All dimensional things are controlled by dimensionless things. All physical things are controlled by metaphysical things. All matter is controlled by mind. All living bodies are animated by the living minds that direct them.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Plato and Aristotle knew that the world could be intelligible only if matter \u2013 the stuff we see and with which we interact \u2013 has invisible form controlling it, form being the entity that organizes and unifies a given collection of matter into a single, discrete object. Form provides the definition and actuality of the object. Without it, matter would be undefined and unintelligible \u2026 pure potentiality, and nothing else. Leibniz brilliantly carried forward these ideas in his conception of the monadic mind. It\u2019s now clear that he, Plato and Aristotle were right all along.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Dimensionless mathematics is the unseen form of the world, while \u201cmatter\u201d is what you get when mathematics is processed via the mathematical dimensions of space and time.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Mind is that which exists when space and time do not apply. Matter is that which exists when they do. How simple is that?!<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The mind is immaterial and outside space and time. Mind is an unextended entity that links to extended matter via the well-known mathematical techniques developed by Joseph Fourier in the 18th century. The mind belongs to the ontological Fourier frequency domain, while matter belongs to the ontological Fourier spacetime domain.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
There is no mystery here. The problem for humanity lies in the fact that so many people \u2013 including scientists \u2013 regard mathematics as unreal, abstract and merely a manmade language, rather than as real, concrete and nothing less than the language of Nature itself.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Math existed before the first human, and will still exist after the last human has perished. Mathematics is the language of eternity, of eternal form, of eternal intelligibility. Mathematics is the answer to eternal existence. It is mathematics, not God, that exists eternally, perfectly, immutably, absolutely and infallibly. Math necessarily exists forever. It is *impossible* for math not to exist.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Scientists are not rationalists. They are empiricists, i.e. *irrationalists*. That\u2019s their central problem. That\u2019s why they keep thinking of math as a ghostly subject that they can\u2019t pin down rather than as the concrete foundation of science, and indeed of everything else.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Mathematics is the most concrete thing you can get. You can falsify science, but you can\u2019t falsify mathematics. You can verify, but not prove, science, whereas mathematics is all about proof, hence has no need at all of verification.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In many ways, science, as currently conceived, is the opposite of mathematics. Science won\u2019t achieve a final theory of everything until it realizes that science is merely an extension of unextended mathematics, and that unextended mathematics is where all the ultimate answers and explanations lie.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Forget the Big Bang universe of space, time and matter (the scientific universe). The thing that counts is the mathematical universe \u2013 the analytic Singularity \u2013 that preceded and caused the Big Bang universe. How can you understand the Big Bang universe of science if you do not understand its cause? Its cause was a mathematical universe \u2013 an analytic Singularity of eternal mental energy. What could be more logical?<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The extended universe of space, time and matter was preceded by an unextended, immaterial universe outside space and time, i.e. a Singularity. To put it another way, the cosmic body (the physical universe of science) was created by the cosmic *mind* (the mental universe of mathematics), which *still *exists, and is completely controlling the physical universe.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
To get to body from mind all you are required to do is add extension, and we shall mathematically explain exactly how it is done in this book.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
No miracles are involved. No one needs to invoke gods, spirits, probabilities, indeterminism, chance, accident, or anything else. It is all pure, inevitable, inexorable, rational, deterministic mathematics.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
When Einstein said that \u201cGod\u201d does not play dice, he was incontestably correct. \u201cGod\u201d is pure math, and pure math at all times obeys the principle of sufficient reason, i.e. for every fact, there is an exact reason why it is thus and not otherwise. Science once shared this understanding of reality before becoming disastrously misled by its empiricist philosophy. In a rational mathematical universe, unlike an irrational scientific universe, nothing ever happens for no reason. Explicable causality, not inexplicable probability, drives the physical universe.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The reason why Descartes\u2019 apparently dualistic system isn\u2019t dualistic at all is that it is based on mathematics, hence is monistic. Mind and matter can communicate because there is no obstacle to unextended and extended mathematics communicating with each other. In fact, the latter is entirely derived from the former. That\u2019s what the Big Bang is all about. The extended, empirical universe of space, time and matter \u2013 which science studies \u2013 is born from a perfect, rational, analytic, unextended, mathematical Singularity \u2013 which mathematics studies. What stands beyond physics is metaphysics \u2026 and metaphysics is simply unextended mathematics. Metaphysics versus physics = rationalism versus empiricism = mind versus matter = unextended mathematics versus extended mathematics.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The \u201cmind\u201d is not something bizarre, mysterious and unfathomable. Mind is unextended mathematics, i.e. pure mathematics, shorn of \u201cspace\u201d, \u201ctime\u201d, \u201cmatter\u201d, and human senses and experiences.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The unextended mathematical Singularity is the true version of Plato\u2019s perfect, immutable, eternal domain of absolute, infallible Truth outside space and time. The Truth *is* mathematics. Mathematics is the language of existence, of perfection, of the eternal truths of reason, which, by definition, have applied forever, and can never *not* apply. What preceded the Big Bang was a purely mathematical state, not \u201cGod\u201d, or anything religious, spiritual or mystical. And definitely not non-existence, as science would have you believe.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The mathematical Singularity is the perfect home of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, the True \u201cGod\u201d. \u201cGod\u201d is not a being who manifests perfect reason. God is perfect reason itself, and perfect reason creates beings since perfect reason is nothing less than Plato\u2019s Form of Life. Mathematics *defines*life. Life is a mathematical property.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The reason why science breaks down as it explores the world of the Singularity \u2013 where quantum mechanics and general relativity are unified \u2013 is that it is using entirely the wrong tools, concepts and ways of thinking. Science keeps using extended, empirical thinking where it should be using unextended, rational thinking.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Leibniz \u2013 with his concept of monads (unextended minds) \u2013 was the man who got closest to understanding the true nature of reality. Three hundred years after Leibniz\u2019s death, his monads can now be perfectly explained via mathematics. The key to Leibniz\u2019s *Monadology* is Euler\u2019s Formula, the most important equation ever devised. It is none other than the God Equation, the equation that explains the whole of existence. No other equation can do so. It is unique. It is sublime. It is divine.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
**The** **God** **Equation**<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The power of Euler\u2019s Formula is well illustrated through Einstein\u2019s famous special theory of relativity. Euler\u2019s Formula is the true basis of Einstein\u2019s theory, yet also reveals that Einstein committed several acute interpretive errors, which have plagued science ever since. Einstein misinterpreted his own theory precisely because he was thinking as an empiricist rather than as a rationalist.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Einstein said, \u201cImagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.\u201d In fact, mathematics, not imagination, embraces the entire world, and is all there ever will be to know and understand.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Had he been more imaginative (!), Einstein would have realized this. Like all scientists, he suffered from a cataclysmic *lack* of imagination \u2026 a wholesale inability to imagine a world without space, time and matter. Sensing types, such as Einstein, are the opposite of intuitive types. Intuitives have enormously more powerful imaginations.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The most important component of Einstein\u2019s special theory is the postulate that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source. Nothing is more extraordinary than the absolute character of the speed of light. Einstein did not attempt to explain this singular fact of nature. He merely accepted it as true, and built his theory around it.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
If, as Newton believed, the speed of light is *not* fixed then space and time *must* be fixed. If, by contrast, the speed of light *is* fixed then it\u2019s space and time that are *not* fixed.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
For Newton, the speed of light could go up to infinity. Infinity, in his thinking, was the speed deployed by God. Gravitational effects were instantaneous in Newton\u2019s theory of gravity because God \u2013 who was equivalent to absolute space in Newton\u2019s system \u2013 could literally transmit the necessary information infinitely fast.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
When Einstein abolished infinite speed and made the speed of light the cosmic speed limit, it signified that all forces, including gravity, took time to be transmitted. It also meant that Einstein had killed off Newton\u2019s God.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It never once occurred to Einstein that the fact, proclaimed by his own theory, that no material thing could ever be accelerated to light speed \u2013 and hence that light speed was an ontological boundary and barrier \u2013 indicated that light belonged to *a* *different* *category* *of* *existence* from matter. All material things travel slower than light speed. That immediately begs the question of how light can belong to the material world if it behaves differently from all material things. The answer, of course, is that it does *not* belong to material world, which is exactly why it exhibits entirely different behavior. Science is ideologically incapable of reaching this simple conclusion.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In Cartesian philosophy, there is only one thing that cannot be matter, and that is *mind*. The inescapable conclusion is thus that light is the agent of mind, and what indeed could possibly be a better candidate? The Singularity that precedes the Big Bang is a Singularity of *pure* *light*. Pure light = pure mathematics = pure mind. Light, ontologically, is what unextended mathematics actually is. The \u201cBig Bang\u201d is a light event, a mental event. In particular, the Big Bang involves the breaking of the perfect symmetry of light. \u201cMatter\u201d is broken light \u2026 *asymmetric* light, recalcitrant, sluggish thought.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In mathematical terms, as we shall see, the domain of light is ruled by the mathematical property of *orthogonality*. The material universe, by contrast, is ruled by the property of *non-orthogonality*. Dimensionless existence is orthogonal existence, while dimensional existence is non-orthogonal existence. It really is that simple.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Dimensionality flows from the loss of perfect orthogonality. If perfect orthogonality is restored (as it always is in the end), the physical universe is eradicated, and reality returns to the Singularity of pure light.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
God did not say, \u201cLet there be light.\u201d Light is eternal. In fact, light *is* God, the *real* God.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
So, is light actually mind, as we have asserted? Let\u2019s see if light does indeed have exactly the properties that Descartes attributed to mind. To do so, light must be immaterial, massless, unextended, outside space and time, and be constantly in motion (because if thinking stopped, mind would cease to exist \u2026 a mind is simply that which thinks, and can do nothing else; it thinks *forever*).<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The Cosmic Mind that controls the Physical Cosmos is a Singularity of light. Light controls matter. Matter is *made* from light, from the \u201cbreaking\u201d of light. Ultimately, all that exists is light, and light is just ontological mathematics, i.e. mathematics exists *as* light. Mathematics is not some bizarre, unreal abstraction. Mathematics is light itself. The light from the sun is mathematics. We are bathed in pure mathematics every day. Mathematics is life. Mathematics is mind. The biggest mistake humanity ever made was in failing to understand what mathematics actually is. Without light, we would be dead. Without light, we would not exist. Nothing would exist.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The Grand Unified, Final Theory of Everything is the theory of light, which is simply mathematics! Everything comes from math, everything comes from light, everything comes from mind. \u201cMatter\u201d does not exist in its own right. It is simply a special mode of mind, resulting from specific mathematical properties of mind.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
**Light** **and** **Immaterialism**<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Matter can be defined as that which can never be accelerated to light speed, because it would require an infinite amount of energy to accomplish this. The only thing that is not subject to this prohibition is, of course, light itself. Light, therefore, does not belong to the material world. It belongs to a different category of existence, namely *mental* existence.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It is extraordinary that science considers light part of the material world when it self-evidently isn\u2019t. It *interacts* with the material universe \u2013 exactly as mind interacts with body \u2013 but is not itself material (just as mind is not).<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Light is that which matter can never reach in terms of speed, hence light is not the final material entity, but the first mental entity. It is separated from matter by the clearest of all ontological barriers.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
**Light** **and** **Masslessness**<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u201cThe word \u2018mass\u2019 is given two meanings in special relativity: one (\u2018rest mass\u2019 or \u2018invariant mass\u2019) is an invariant quantity which is the same for all observers in all reference frames; the other (\u2018relativistic mass\u2019) is dependent on the velocity of the observer.\u201d \u2013 Wikipedia<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The photon \u2013 the particle of light \u2013 has zero rest mass. The rest mass of an object is the inertial mass it possesses when it is at rest, i.e. not moving in space. Everything in the material world has a non-zero rest mass. Light does not, hence light cannot belong to the material world. Once again, we see that light belongs to a different category of existence. The only alternative to material existence is mental existence. There is no other type of existence.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
There are only minds and bodies; the mental and the material. Photons \u2013 the light carriers \u2013 belong to the mental, not the physical.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Before Einstein, an object\u2019s mass was regarded as a constant. Its rest mass was its mass in *all* *circumstances*, regardless of speed. Einstein\u2019s special theory of relativity ushered in the notion of relativistic mass (i.e. dynamic, non-rest mass), different from rest mass, and which would keep changing as velocity kept changing.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
If light speed is fixed, space and time cannot be fixed. If space and time are not fixed then mass cannot be fixed either since mass is implicitly defined with respect to space and time. The condition of light speed being fixed is the criterion for mental existence. The condition of material existence is space and time not being fixed, ergo light does not belong to material existence.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
John Wheeler wrote, \u201cMass tells spacetime how to curve, and spacetime tells mass how to move.\u201d This shows how intimately mass is related to space and time. Mass is just an aspect of spacetime. You cannot have physical mass without spacetime. Likewise, you cannot have physical mass in non-spacetime (a singularity). Light has no physical mass because it is not in spacetime.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Light *interacts* with spacetime. It is not *part* of spacetime. When we perceive light, we unavoidably perceive it from a spacetime perspective, which gives us a wholly false notion of its true nature. *We* are in spacetime. Light isn\u2019t. We can\u2019t help but perceive all things as being in spacetime \u2013 we are permanently wearing spacetime goggles \u2013 even if they are *not* in spacetime. If we were wearing green goggles, everything would appear green, including everything that wasn\u2019t green. The task is to try to conceive of light from its own perspective, not ours, i.e. to mentally remove our spacetime goggles. Only math can accomplish this transformation of perspective.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Nothing is more detrimental to our ability to think about ultimate reality than our spacetime goggles \u2026 the basis of materialism and empiricism. If we could take off our spacetime goggles, no one would be a materialist or empiricist, and everyone would have a radically different conception of light. Light doesn\u2019t move through spacetime. Spacetime moves through light!<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
**=====**<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Any object in motion has kinetic energy. According to Einstein, an object\u2019s mass increases as its energy increases. Therefore, the mass of an object is at its *minimum* when it is stationary. Its mass would be at its *maximum* if it could travel at light speed, but Einstein\u2019s equations show that its mass would then have to be *infinite*. However, this is a contradiction since light itself does not have infinite mass. In fact, it has no mass.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In special relativity, an object\u2019s dynamic mass, m, is calculated via the following equation:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
m = m0\/\u221a(1 \u2013 (v2\/c2))<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
where m0 is the rest mass, v is the object\u2019s velocity through space, and c is the speed of light.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
When v = 0 (i.e. the object is stationary in space), m = m0. As v increases, so does m. If v = c, m is infinite. Nothing in the material world has infinite mass, hence no material thing can be accelerated to light speed. It would require infinite energy to do so. This proves that there is a definitive ontological boundary between matter and light (mind). They do not belong to the same category of existence. It\u2019s therefore a category error to treat light as part of the material world. Science, since it refuses to accept the existence of mind as a real entity, independent of matter, continuously commits this category error, with fatal consequences for the coherence of its theories.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
**=====**<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
There is a fundamental problem with Einstein\u2019s equation. Light moves at light speed, yet does not have infinite mass. In fact, it has no mass. This means that in order for anything material to travel at light speed, it would have to cease to be material and become mental, i.e. it would have to undergo an ontological phase transition. We see exactly the same phase transition in the formation of black hole singularities. Massive stars implode to nothing at all. They leave spacetime entirely.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Any material thing approaching light speed would become so massive that it would collapse into a singularity, just like a huge star. Every moving object would thus have its dynamic equivalent of the Schwarzschild radius.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Wikipedia says, \u201cThe Schwarzschild radius \u2026 is the radius of a sphere such that, if all the mass of an object were to be compressed within that sphere, the escape velocity from the surface of the sphere would equal the speed of light. An example of an object where the mass is within its Schwarzschild radius is a black hole. Once a stellar remnant collapses to or below this radius, light cannot escape and the object is no longer directly visible outside, thereby forming a black hole. It is a characteristic radius associated with every quantity of mass.\u201d<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
This means that the material world of mass is completely bounded and contained by the immaterial mental world of no mass. When anything in the material world becomes too massive, it leaves material existence and becomes mental. Nothing material can travel at the speed of light because only mental things travel at that speed. To reach light speed, a material object does not need infinite energy. Rather, it needs to leave the spacetime world of matter, and it inevitably does so as soon as its mass reaches a certain critical point (determined by what we might designate as its \u201cSchwarzschild velocity\u201d).<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The material world exists *inside* the mental world, in the sense that any means you use to leave the material world will necessarily involve your undergoing a phase transition to mental existence. When people wonder what space is expanding into, the answer is that it\u2019s expanding into *mind*, not into non-existence. You can escape from the material world to the mental world, but you cannot escape from the mental world to anywhere beyond that. There is nowhere beyond the mind! The mind is the true universe. The false universe is the material construct \u2013 the Matrix \u2013 that resides within the mind, created entirely by mathematics.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
All of these conclusions are implicit in the special theory of relativity, yet they are scrupulously avoided and ignored by small-minded, dim-witted, unimaginative and unintuitive scientists, who are entirely ruled by their senses, and never once consider the possibility of dimensionless, mental existence \u2026 even though it\u2019s staring them right in the face via their own equations!<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Scientists hate rationalism, hate reason and hate logic. The only conclusions they entertain are those compatible with materialism and empiricism. That makes science a closed-minded faith, the opposite of what it purports to be.<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Euler’s Formula and Special Relativity The Truth Series Book One Group Study Section 1 BY DR. THOMAS STARK, ANOTHER PSEUDONYM FOR MIKE HOCKNEY **Introduction** What is the greatest scientific mystery of modern times, the mystery that would stump even Sherlock Holmes? It is this \u2026 why, despite the greatest intellectual effort in scientific history over […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1593],"tags":[2933],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bassdu.mine.bz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5449"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bassdu.mine.bz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bassdu.mine.bz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bassdu.mine.bz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bassdu.mine.bz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5449"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/bassdu.mine.bz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5449\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5450,"href":"https:\/\/bassdu.mine.bz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5449\/revisions\/5450"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bassdu.mine.bz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5449"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bassdu.mine.bz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5449"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bassdu.mine.bz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5449"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}