____________________Reply Separator____________________

Subject: Fw: go ahead, Author: rm@themarginal.com Date: 23/08/99 13:39

-----Original Message-----

From: Aquamarine Sea water unquenched@hotmail.com To: rm@themarginal.com rm@themarginal.com Date: Monday, August 23, 1999 06:58 Subject: go ahead

Hello Roland, It seems that you've thought through what I've said and a lot of what you're saying is true.

Well, please choke on that for now and I will get back to you later this weekend to finish answering your e-mails."

"All right, I have put it on my main page, because I am afraid people might not take the bother to go on to another page. It is not where the correspondence starts, it is in the middle of the whole file (section 4 I believe). Because I want them to read my answers before getting into the equations bits that I have not developed that much yet."

But the next e-mail I send you, I'll ask you not to publish it. Then, I'll talk about some of my original ideas (only some).

Just to expand further on what Descartes said in his "Meditations." His idea was that an "evil genius" could be tricking you into believing that the external world and everyone else, and everything else (including your own body) exists. There is no way to prove this wrong without a doubt. But, he says, even if you are being deceived about everything, it is doubtless that you (at least your mind) exist if you are being deceived. This gave rise to the famous line, "I think, therefore I am."

Another philosopher, George Berkeley, talked about something else. He claimed that nothing can exist without being perceived by a "perceiving thing."

This is because we cannot conceive of something being unperceived. For example, try to think of something in your closet being unperceived. Just by thinking of it, you are perceiving it. Trying to think of something being unthought of is a paradox. Therefore nothing can exist without being perceived by a perceiving thing (at some level).

As for that other philosopher, sorry, don't remember.

I've used a parallel argument to Berkeley's on the idea of time. It's simple. Try to think about time not existing. It is impossible because every thought you have takes time. Therefore the idea of the non-existence of time is a paradox. So time exists.

You're probably delighted to realise that this same argument cannot be used to prove the existence of distance.

I've started to think about some of the problems you have with relativity and it'll take me some time to address them. I'm also very busy. In fact, I gotta go to work now. I'll try to get back to you before the end of the week. Later.

Thanks, Regards,

Roland Michel Tremblay

-----Original Message----- From: Aquamarine Sea water unquenched@hotmail.com To: rm@themarginal.com rm@themarginal.com Date: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 11:52 Subject: One other thing

Hello again,(Feel free to publish this)

"Yes, I am saying that. And you are presenting somehow a nice image here. The one that the stars in expansion in our sky could actually be shrinking instead. Which could explain why they can rotate (as well as seen flat) if they were to reach speeds closer to light speed. You see, even if the universe was in expansion, all the clusters of stars getting farther and farther from us, can only be seen from us as getting closer together anyway, the whole thing is in fact shrinking from our view, whilst getting further away. And eventually you would see a dot, but this dot would be maybe ten galaxies... As well, nothing is getting farther apart in the universe. We have to change the way we see, otherwise we will drowned. You could say that it is in expansion, or you could say it is shrinking from your point of view (which means from your frame of reference). But overall, space and time changes depending on your speed and location. Every time you are getting speed, you are in a different frame of reference, in fact, for each point that can observe something, there is a new frame of reference. Depending on your frame of reference, you will see space and time like that or that, and energies must be different too, everything must be different. If a civilization was living on a ship going at almost the speed of light all the time, they would be flat like a pancake (and rotated from our point of view), still, they could live normally without seeing that from their frame of reference, they would be living in a flat world, almost like another dimension. Plus, they would see us flat too! They might not even be able to say if it was us or them going at almost the speed of light. Well, I believe that the differences between the frame of references are all very different, and quite a lot. And if scientists have been able to identify that certain electron had almost infinite energy, should it not be because that electron is bigger than your universe, but is going so fast that it has shrunk beyond visibility? In order for this electron to be at our scale, it would need to lose all its speed for quite a while until actually you could see it coming through your space. Our conversation really got me see the universe as I described it in my theory. I have now a better picture of what I say and this is very important, to be able to see it. To imagine how the universe can work in this situation. "

That is, one is equally justified in saying that everything is shrinking as opposed to space expanding, according to our definition of space.

What I've done is taken a different approach than you, and said there is something wrong with our definition of space. You've said that the matter is actually shrinking. Perhaps we're taking different approaches to reaching the same truth.

I believe there are many approaches to reach the same things. So many in fact that it is like talking about God. Many different religions, but perhaps the same God? Many definitions of Hell, but perhaps the same Hell?

You have to clear me up on something though. Whenever I think of Size, as in big or small, I'm inclined to think of dimensions. That is, I think of something as bigger than something else if the "distance" from one end to the other of it is greater than the distance from one end to the other of that something else (bigger dimensions).

In fact, I can't even conceive the meaning of "big," "small," "shrinking" and "expanding" without invoking the concept of distance. Yet you seem to do this freely, while claiming that there is no distance. Can you enlighten me on this? Thank you.

Oh! For the argument sakes and to be able to express myself still, in the world those people invented, I need to use these concepts. But hey, intelligent beings should see through it and understand what I mean, no? I refuse to do like Jean-Paul Sartre and invent a new vocabulary that nobody will ever understand. But if I become all blurry, tell me and I will make myself clearer, as shining as a star (you will then be able to see your teeth through me!).

P.S. How did you get a hold of Hawking?

I found his e-mail address somewhere, see later in correspondence to get it. Though he has a secretary (a student probably) telling you that he might read your message (that point is unclear) but most probably will not answer it. He must be unreachable, like the Black Holes underlying the truth he describes... We might reach a Black Hole before we reach him in fact...

Here, send a blank e-mail there, and you will get the autoreply (don't bother writing something in your e-mail, it all goes into a black hole anyway, and apparently nothing can come out of these weird things): S.W.Hawking@damtp.cam.ac.uk

I have some trouble with a point... It was brought to my attention by someone's comment...
You believe that here is no distance, that we all occupy the same space? Is that it? And that we shrink relative to each other depending on our relative speeds.

Now, if there is no distance, how can we have any size at all. As (as someone else pointed out) we have x,y,z coordinates that require distance.

Now, these coordinates must change if if we shrink. Therefore distances changes....Therefore there is distance.

The Shrinking Theory is basically a new way of seeing the Universe. Nothing has a speed in the Universe, there is only a shrinking/ enhancing process of everything. Light enhances at a rate of "c", always. We, on the other hand, shrink and enhance variably, still, we do not cover any distance. When you walk 1 km on the horizon, you are not covering any distance. You just made possible for objects in the distance to become bigger to your eyes, and the ones at the back to become smaller. Such an idea comes from the fact that the speed of light is always constant no matter our speed and that it has been observed that at high speed objects shrink and time seems to stop for these objects. The faster we go, the more we shrink. The slower we go, the more we enhance, and finally, our speed, globally, always manages to stay the same. I will go further and say that all matter in this universe is energy and is just a vibration in higher dimensions. In this kind of universe, the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line, neither a curved line. There is no shortest distance between two points, because there is no distance between two points, only the illusion of it.

1) Everything in space is located at a same point.
2) Therefore there is no distance neither speed, only the illusion of it.
3) Everything enhances before our eyes or shrinks beyond visibility. Everything (reality) is just a vibration in higher dimensions (like light).
4) Distance is only the effect of things shrinking or enhancing before our eyes. Rulers shrink as well, then it is irrelevant outside the point of view of the observer.
5) Speed is only the rate at which things shrink or enhance. Speed = the shrinking/enhancing rate of things.
6) Time is only a tool invented by men which works at one specific point at a specific rate of shrinking or enhancing. Beyond that it changes, it is not relevant. Time becomes interesting once we can calculate its rate depending on how shrunk or how enhanced things are. At that point, we use the rate at which it goes to calculate how shrunk or enhanced an object is. We have to be able to calculate its rate and compare with other rates of other objects moving or not in the universe. We can do the same thing for rulers. By comparing the degree of shrinking of a ruler with another in another place in the universe, we can calculate the degree of shrinking/enhancing of objects.
7) The faster you go, the more you shrink and the more time goes slower. The slower you go, the more you enhance and time goes faster.
8) Planets are particles that go so slow that time seems to have stopped, therefore we see it large, enhanced. Atoms are particles that go so fast that time goes beyond our view, therefore we see it small, shrunk.
9) Distance is as relative as time. The Speed of Light is also relative, meaning you can go faster than the speed of light, but only from someone else's frame of reference. Therefore, relative to another observer, you can go many times faster than the speed of light, thought yourself will always calculate it to be 300,000 km/s. Because time and distance in your frame of reference adjust and light will always take the same amount of relative time to cross two points on your relative stick meter (distance). This is why the speed of light is relative.
10) The very small is as much here as the very large, planets and atoms are the same size. The fact that it has shrunk before our eyes (from our point of view) or enhanced before our eyes does not change anything.
11) A particle can be at two places at the same time because there is no such thing as places. A particle can be everywhere at the same time, everything is at the same point in space.
12) Our problem is that we have a theory for the very large and one for the very small. I said that there is no difference between the very large and the very small, therefore the same laws must apply. The observer point of view has to change, that is what I say.

• This constant speed of light

• Explanation - Speed and distance are illusions

• Our Size Changes, Not our Speed

• Speed = Rate of Shrinking/Enhancing

• Is Matter just string vibrations?

• Warping Space - There is no shortest distance between two points

• WHAT IS REALLY THE UNIVERSE WE LIVE IN - Everything is at the same point

• Why we cannot go faster than the speed of light

• Are we always travelling at the speed of light and really moving through time?

• Is there speed in the universe?

• Now, for the illusion of me travelling from the earth to the sun at a certain speed

• The very large is the very small and vice versa

• The Holodeck Analogy

• A matter of perspective - We can apply Einstein's Theory in the very small if we shrink that much and Quantum theory to the universe if we enhance too much

• The Shrinking Process might involved new dimensions other than length, depth, width and time

                           Part 2

• Letter to Dr Michio Kaku (author of Hyperspace, working on Superstrings)

• THE SHRINKING PROCESS - Main 12 points of the Shrinking Theory

• What is Space? What is Time? What is Energy? What is Matter?

• Space

• Time

• Spacetime

• Energy

• Matter

• Energy-Matter

• The Consequence of the Superstring Theory

• The Universe, a Hypersphere

• The Theory of Everything - SPACE-TIME-ENERGY-MATTER

• Considering The Four Main Forces

• Black Holes Ain't So Frozen (only from our perspective)

• How to picture speed and distance in higher dimensions?

                           Part 3

• Stephen Hawking's wave function universe - Schrödinger's cat re-revisited again and again

• You could save the configuration of the universe on a virtual floppy disk and reload it 20 times

• Transforming matter in the very large-very small universe

• If really the universe is at a same point and things shrink and enhance: why Newton and Einstein Theories are working?

• Lorentz's Transformation Equations

• Is the Shrinkage due to motion or "distance"?

• Newton's Laws

• 1. Inertia

• 2. Force/Motion

• 3. Action/Reaction

• Einstein's Theories

• Einstein's Equation: E = mc²

• Einstein's Potential Energy Equation: hf = hf0 + ½mv²

• Mass energy tensor, Ricci tensor, Riemann curvature tensor, Christoffel symbol, metric of the space

• The equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass

• Special Relativity

• General Relativity

• The constancy of the speed of light is necessary

• The 3 laws of Thermodynamics

• Relativistic mass

• Summation Of An Infinite Series (Calculus)

• The Physics of Consciousness

                        Part 5 - THINGS TO THINK ABOUT

• No very small at one point

• Why time changes depending on the rate of shrinking and enhancing? More simply, why time can have different rates?

• Why do we and the universe shrink and enhance?

• Why is it that if a train was going at the speed of light and enter a station the passengers see the people on the platform shrunk and that those people see the passengers shrunk as well?

• Why is it that if we stop an atom it does not suddenly become very large?

• Why is it that humans always have to ask stupid questions that will never find an answer in their lifetime or the lifetime of the Universe?

                        Part 6

• HOW IT ALL STARTED and Correspondence with Michio Kaku and others

I remember about the speed of light and the principle of Einstein about wherever you are and whatever your speed, the speed of light is constant. Now, the question is, stop me if I am wrong, the question is: why?

Basically, it is all very nice to have identified that the speed of light is always a constant called "c" but I believe that if we could see further and think a little bit more, we could draw a new theory explaining why. Or perhaps finding an explication and from it draw a new theory.

Let's think about it, I am so ignorant, perhaps it has been answered, I wish someone could tell me that. If we follow a ray of light at almost the speed of light, still, light will travel at a speed of "c" in front of us.

Speed is an illusion (or relative if you like). The whole universe is an illusion, an interpretation of our brains. We always stay at the same place, we never really move.

Ok, let's keep that the speed is an illusion. Whatever the speed we travel at, it is all relative. It does not matter, time and space compensate for everything and really we become smaller, the more we go into space. Ah yes! The faster you go, according to Kaku, the smaller you become (remember his analogy about a car with people in it becoming like accordions, shrinking, whilst an observer away from them think that time has stopped for the passengers, whilst the passengers do not see anything wrong because their brains have become smaller too and for them time is normal).

Meaning your own speed is constant as well. Whatever the speed you travel at, it is a constant called for example "d". Now I have something, or so I believe I have. What I am trying to determine here is that whatever our speed, the speed of light is constant. Meaning our speed might be constant as well. Now, how to picture this (and I will explain it better later on) is that there is not really a speed involved, the word needs a new definition, but I will still use it because it serves our purpose.

00000000 (this is the size of an observer who has stopped)

0000 (this is the size of someone who moves at a certain speed)

00 (this is the size of someone who moves even faster)

0 (this is the size of someone who moves at almost the speed of light)

00000000 (this is the speed of light which remains constant for everyone)

Now, what I am proposing is that the only way this can be, is that the size of this someone change, but not it's speed. Now we can talk about the rate at which someone shrinks or enhances.

Our speed is constant as well, there is only a shrinking process, we become smaller or bigger depending on our speed. If we go faster, than space around us shrinks and we shrink with it. Time and rulers act accordingly. So really, what goes faster or slower is not speed, it is the rate of shrinking. Meaning our speed and the speed of light always remain the same. And this rate of shrinking is dependant on Energy.

You can put it this way as well: whatever your speed, space will shrink and you with it (and time and rulers will change accordingly) to make sure your speed does not really change. So you will still calculate the speed of light as a constant "c" and your speed, in a way, will always be constant (zero).

I suppose we could just keep the old way and say that light has a constant speed and humans do not. We go faster or slower and whatever we do, the speed of light is constant. But this does not explain why and certainly it has an explanation.

E = mc²: Energy = mass * speed of light²

If you remember, I said that if the speed of light was constant, it can only means that our speed is constant as well. Now if our speed is zero, Einstein's theory does not work anymore. Our speed has to be replaced by the rate at which things shrink or enhance, and this rate equates speed as we know it. The difference is primordial for the reason that then it is possible to see light going at a constant speed of "c" no matter our speed. Which brings the question: does light really has a speed? No, light only have a rate of enhancing which is "c". Then again, the difference is essential.

Basically, nothing has a speed here. Light enhances at a rate of "c", always. We, on the other side, shrink and enhance variably, still, we do not cover any distance. When you walk 1 km on the horizon, you are not covering any distance. You just made possible for objects in the distance to become bigger to your eyes, and the ones at the back to become smaller. Such an idea comes from the fact that the speed of light is always constant no matter our speed and that it has been observed that at high speed objects shrink and time seems to stop for these objects. I hope to be convincing enough in the next few pages to demonstrate that this is possible.

I think I am just inventing stuff with this, but I thought I would say it anyway just in case it lights something in the head of someone else. I do not believe these things, I am considering them as hypothesis. Basically, I am not sure if we have a speed, whatever the speed we travel at. And I will come to explain this later. I think that like light, whatever our speed, it is always the same speed. The faster we go, the more we shrink. The slower we go, the more we enhance, and finally, our speed, globally, always manages to stay the same. I am not sure if we will be able to determine that constant speed, which is really a shrinking rate, and perhaps through the calculation of speed as we know it, we already determined this rate of shrinking or enhancing. Really, speed = the shrinking/enhancing rate of everything.

Michio Kaku says on page 231 of Hyperspace: "It seems remarkable that such a simple idea - that higher dimensions can unify space with time, and that a "force" can be explained by the warping of that space-time - would lead to such a rich diversity of physical consequences."

Any force is nothing less than Energy, and the whole universe as we know it is nothing less than Energy. It has been said in the book Hyperspace of Michio Kaku, considering the Superstring theory, that in higher dimensions, light could be a vibration of the fifth dimension. At this point, I will go further and say that all matter in this universe is energy and is just a vibration in higher dimensions. (I think the Superstring Theory states something like that already).

In this kind of universe, the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line, neither a curved line. There is no shortest distance between two points, because there is no distance between two points, only the illusion of it.

Now, I will sound like a Star Trek fan, but warp speed is apparently possible. In the preface of The Physics of Star Trek by Lawrence M. Krauss, Stephen Hawking says: "Although there are problems of negative energy, it seems that such warping (of space) might be within our capabilities in the future". And on page 227 of Hyperspace, here is what Mr Kaku says: "If the Enterprise travels from the earth to the nearest star, it does not physically move to Alpha Centauri - rather, Alpha Centauri comes to the Enterprise. […] In other words, we have hardly moved: the space between us and the table (Alpha Centauri) has contracted, and we just step across this contracted distance." Well, if the extensive research of Mr Lawrence M. Krauss with scientists about the possibility of such a warp of space says that it is possible, I do not see how we could still think that distance really exists. All these things seem so obvious that I cannot imagine I am the first to point it out. Because nobody seems to have tried to explain how all this was possible in the universe as we know it.

The best analogy of the universe as I see it, and this is the major point of all my babbling, is a wheel like a merry-go-round. I explain it later, but I will explain it here as well. I cannot remember where in the book of Michio Kaku I have seen this analogy, but it is a great idea to explain how I think the universe works.

Imagine a big merry-go-round wheel, get rid of the horses and all the stuff, and you have a wheel that turns. Now, this is the universe, not only the very large, but the very small as well. On the edge, it turns so fast that it bends in a ball like the higher dimensions, it warps into a ball. This is our universe, a hypersphere. On the edge you have the very small, the atomic structures, the little particles. In the centre, you have the very large, the planets, the stars. Where are the higher dimensions? They are at the edge. Where are the three spatial dimensions that are composing our universe? In the centre. Now, and it is the most important part of my theory, if you stop the merry-go-round wheel, everything becomes the same size. Everything is here in our space and time. There is no difference between the very small and the very large, everything is here surrounding us. The only difference is that on the edge it goes so fast that things shrink and we see it very small. In the centre, things go so slow that we see it very large, like the planets and the stars. Now, every time a spaceship goes into space and takes some speed, really, what happens is that this spaceship approaches the edge of the wheel, therefore it goes faster and it shrinks. This ship has not cross a distance and does not really have a speed, it only shrunk in our vision, it has not left earth. Even, through a Einstein-Rosen bridge, this spaceship could warp space and go where it wants to go faster, beyond the speed of light.

Now is the time to answer why this spaceship cannot go beyond the speed of light unless it warps space (or makes the distance disappear). E=mc² is our limit. The necessary energy to go faster than light implies infinite mass and infinite energy. A more simple reason as why we cannot go faster than the speed of light, and it is amazing that Einstein was able to determine that through his equation, is that there is no such thing as speed. The shrinking/ enhancing process of space and of us prevents speed and keeps us at the same place. Light has no speed as such, this is why that what we perceive has being a speed is constant. Since you cannot really move, how could you expect to reach light? It shall always remain constant, at least it is not going anywhere.

Irrelevant question: could we enhance and shrink faster than the enhancing rate of light? Well, if we consider the theories of Einstein, nothing really changes in my theory. Since we just replaced speed with a shrinking/enhancing rate.

If we follow a ray of light at almost the speed of light, still light will travel at a speed of "c" in front of us. Why?

Mr Epstein in his book "Relativity VISUALIZED", says the following:

 (http://www.appliedthought.com/InsightPress/RelativityVisualized.html)

"Why can't you travel faster than light? The reason you can't go faster than the speed of light is that you can't go slower. Everything, including you, is always moving at the speed of light. How can you be moving if you are at rest in a chair? You are moving through time.

Why are clocks moving through space perceived to run slower and slower as they travel faster and faster? Because a clock properly runs through time, not through space. If you compel it to run through space, it is able to do so only by diverting some of the speed it should use for travelling through time. As it travels through space faster and faster, it diverts more and more speed. How much speed can it possibly divert? The clock can divert ALL its speed. Then it is going through space as fast as it possibly can, but there is nothing left for travelling through time. The clock stops ticking. It stops aging."

Perhaps he is right, I do not know. I like the idea that he took literally the fact that time is a dimension. I have a tendency to think otherwise. If we consider time as a real dimension then yes, we move through time as much as in space. We happen to always be moving, and perhaps exactly at the speed of light. Then when we shrink or enhance through space-time, we have to give up on this time, space changes, still we are travelling at the speed of light. And Perhaps we are both describing the same phenomena through different descriptions. I have not read his book and there is little chance I will, since I would have to pay (I do not have any money) and order his book through mail order. Well, I will continue my own theory.

---------------------------) speed of light c (constant)

--------) Quarter speed of light (shrink by a factor of c/4)

-------------) Half speed of light (shrink by a factor of c/2)

---------------------) Three quarter speed of light (shrink by a factor of c/x)

Our constant speed seems to be calculated using the speed of light. Since we can't reach it, and it is always constant whatever our speed, it is perhaps logical that we can calculate our constant speed with it. "c/4" sounds too simple, I agree, still it shows the idea that we can calculate it. Since whatever our speed, the speed of light is "c", my guess is that our constant speed is either zero or the speed of light. Our speed must be equal to the speed of light since it is always constant. I mean, our speed could be the speed of light, since light never goes faster or slower whatever our speed. If light can always keep this speed, perhaps we are going at the same speed ourselves, keeping up with it whatever our speed. In the same train of thought, our speed might be zero since the speed of light is constant whatever our speed. Whatever we try to reach its speed, we just shrink and do not cover any distance. Or perhaps there is no such thing as speed, before we get too much of a headache. Some people might say: "Ah, light is composed of photons going on a wave. We are particles, which might act like waves sometimes, but do not travel like waves". Still, that does not explain why this speed of light is constant at all time.

Here on earth, the planet seems very big. Exactly like the very large. The sun looks very small (to compare with its real size if we were there), like the very small. There is no distance between the earth and the sun since I could warp space and get there almost instantly. What happens is that the sun has shrink from my point of you. And if I stay on earth and watch a spaceship going there through a telescope, I will only see it shrinks before my eyes, not really covering a distance. What is interesting is that the more the ship shrinks before my eyes, the more inside the ship they see the sun enhancing and the earth and me shrinking. Space-time plays a trick on us, but we no longer have to be fools. We know that much already through science fiction to tell us that reality is perhaps a totally different story.

Let's think about it, it seems crazy that whatever our speed, the speed of light is "c". The only explanation I can find is that the faster you go, the more you shrink. So distance in a way is no distance. Distance = zero. Speed = zero.

Everything is glued together, the whole universe is at the same place. The distance is an illusion, you think people go far away from you only because they shrink, they become smaller or bigger. Speed does not exist, neither the distance. And to worsen the situation, if you leave earth, earth shrinks as well for you. Meaning that it is not a matter of planets being very large and atoms being very small, it is a matter of perception. The more you shrink and reach the Plank length, the more the very large is shrinking for you and then becomes the very small, whilst you are now living in the very large. Then, time is going slower for you than on earth (now the very small), whilst on earth they are calculating the exact same thing. Both people in the very large and in the very small see the other time going faster than theirs. You see now why there is no difference between the very large and the very small and everything is just perspective.

I think it makes sense, it explains the infinitely small and the infinitely large: meaning, the very small has shrunk beyond our vision, the very large has enhanced as for us to think we are right inside it, trapped. But really, everything is at the same point. Which is why all the other higher dimensions they are talking about have become so small that we cannot determined or see them. It is only a matter of perspective. Einstein's theory of General Relativity and the Quantum Mechanics theory can be joined in a very simple equation because it is all the same thing. There is no infinitesimal large and no infinitesimal small. Space-time-energy-matter, all is link together. And we can see that in the Superstring theory, that in higher dimensions, Einstein's theory of General Relativity and the Quantum Mechanics theory are linked. So how does can be unless there is no difference between the very large and the very small in higher dimensions?

It seems logical that if the speed of light is constant, it is because there is something wrong about the way we conceive the universe. If the speed of light is constant, it is because whatever its speed, it will always shrink/enhance at the same rate. In fact the speed of light should not be spoken of in terms of the speed of light (I think there is no such concept) but instead should be spoken in terms of the shrinking or enhancing level of light. We can call it the Shrinking Theory, it sounds as good as the String Theory.

So all those other dimensions, they are as much here than the three other spatial ones. They simply shrunk, even, they have simply shrunk from our point of view. The question is why things shrink less or more? There is no speed, nor distance, nor deepness. There is only things that shrink a lot to become very small before our eyes, or very large before our eyes. We called that speed through space for which we calculated a time. But really we could say that through our own calculations of speed, what we were really calculating, was the rate of shrinking or enhancing of objects. I think that if light always travel at a speed of "c", it is because the way we calculate speed is based on the time that light takes to cross a certain distance. Now, we know that space can be warped, is curved, that time changes depending on where we are and at the speed we move and overall we shrink like accordions the faster we go! Space and Time change and our size as well, which is why whatever we do, our calculation of the speed of light, based on the time it takes to cross a certain distance in space, will always makes it constant. Therefore the way we calculate the speed of light is biased. There is something wrong about the way we see the universe.

Note, speed could still exist, the problems is that through an acceleration, we only shrink or enhance. That is why I thought it became irrelevant. Still, there is no reason to forget about it or change all the laws and theories existing. You could still say there is a distance and calculate it, but then, the more you accelerate, the more this distance shrink with you. Then again, why talk about a distance? We have been able to determined a speed and a distance through calculations of an illusion, through observations of what we thought was, and of course we succeeded. (I have not even drink tonight, but I admit I am on penicillin because of my teeth ache. Crazy enough that I believe that without Ibuprofen, Paracetemol, penicillin, codeine, alcohol and this trip to the south of France on a boat, on the Canal du Midi, I might have never get those ideas…).

The faster you go, the more you shrink and the more time goes slower. The slower you go, the more you enhance and time goes faster. This is true for an object shrinking in space at a certain rate for an observer. But not with the particles of the infinitesimal small. There, they have shrunk, they go fast, but time goes faster as well. Again it is just perspective. It seems there are two ways in the shrinking theory. Objects who shrink in the very large, and objects already shrunk in the very small. My guess is that once an object goes so fast and as shrunk beyond our view, time goes faster. If a ship goes fast in the very large, time goes slower than time on Earth. If this ship could go faster and faster, at one point it should become invisible to our view and go faster, like the atom structures. But it does not. Instead it is like in a black hole, it freezes in space and time. So why is the very small not frozen like in a black hole (also called "frozen star")? Why is it that it goes so fast in the very small, that still time goes faster and this world is alive unlike in a black hole? This paradox can be explain by the perspective. If the little ship has gone beyond our visibility and look frozen to us, if we could see it through a microscope (and I believe we could, no matter how far this ship is from earth), we would see this ship like atomic structures, very alive, moving very fast and time would go much faster that where the observer at the other end of the microscope is. Like inside a block hole. It seems frozen to us, but if really it is like a contain universe in itself and can contain life, time in there will actually go much faster than outside, here on earth. If the ship goes very fast in space, it is just shrinking more and more, but always stays here on earth. Then, yes, if we could make the distinction between this ship and the rest of the particles of the very small, you could see it. But this ship might have gone beyond the Planck length, therefore we would need a much powerful microscope than what exist at the moment to see it. This makes me think that a black hole, where everything goes so fast but still seems frozen in time, is something that has already shrunk before our eyes and could be observed through a microscope. The fact that we still see it through a telescope is of no consequence, time seems to have stopped, but on the contrary, all this is in a process of shrinking and has probably shrunk faster than we think, than what we can see because of our perspective. In a way, the stars and the planets out there are here, and they are composing us and the earth, and the rest of the very small. (OK, that last one might be wrong. Because if the very small is of the Planck scale, then the atomic structures are really part of the very large, not the very small. Only the Planck scale is really what we should be concerned about as the very small. Then again, since the universe has warped into a bubble and the edge has shrunk, stars in the distance could be composing us, could be the atomic structures. Think about that, it needs to be developed.) I repeat that there is no difference between the very large and the very small, that the atomic structures are nothing less than stars and planets that have shrunk before our view but still are planets and stars in the very large, and even, perhaps, the very small is composed of stars and planets that we can see through our powerful telescopes. Really, at this point, looking into a microscope or a telescope is the same thing, we will observe the Universe from two different points of view. One will seem to go very fast, the other very slow. Ultimately, stop the universe in its course and we shall find everything the same size with the same rate of time and at the same place. Meaning, if someone can modify the atomic structures, this person is also modifying the configuration of the stars and the planets, but so far from us that we cannot see it through our best telescopes. I know this sounds crazy, I just hope that the theory of the higher dimensions can shed some light over this. Since in higher dimensions, we might be able to see what really is the bigger picture of the universe.

Note: if the ship seen through a Telescope seems frozen in space and time, how can it be actually part of the very small, going very fast with time running faster than us? Because if this ship comes back on earth, definitely time will have passed much faster on earth than on the ship. As I said: The more you shrink and reach the Plank length, the more the very large is shrinking for you and then becomes the very small, whilst you are now living in the very large (even if it is the Planck length). Then, time is going slower for you than on earth (now the very small), whilst on earth they are calculating the exact same thing about you. Both people in the very large and in the very small see the other time going faster than theirs. You see now why there is no difference between the very large and the very small and everything is just perspective. So, if the ship comes back on earth, it goes back into the very small. Therefore it is normal that time would have gone much faster in the very small than in the very large (where the ship was). Our problem here is that according to us the ship always stayed in the very large, it was frozen, not going very fast like in the atomic structures. And if it was really possible to see it in the very small with a microscope, then surely time should have gone much faster than on earth. (This paradox might find a reason into the fact that if time should go faster for the atomic structures, perhaps time is going much slower at Planck scale. But then again, I will like to say that this reason might be wrong. In fact, this whole paradox has already been answered through the general relativity of Einstein. According to Michio Kaku in Hyperspace,p.341, Note 3 of Chapter 4: "In this situation we have two people, each correctly thinking that the other has been compressed. This is not a true contradiction because it takes time in which to perform a measurement, and time as well as space has been distorted. In particular, events that appear simultaneous in one frame are not simultaneous when viewed in another frame. […] The essence of this "paradox," and many others that appear in relativity theory, is that the measuring process takes time, and that both space and time become distorted in different ways in different frames.)

In a way, it is like on the holodeck of the Enterprise. You always stay at the same spot in the holodeck, whatever the move of your feet. The holodeck will move matter to make you think you are climbing a mountain or swimming in a sea. But really, you always stay in the same spot. It will make you think that you are moving at an incredible speed, the G forces will smash you to pieces, but really, it is just an effect of shrinking too fast for your own integrity. Everything is just energy-matter all in the same space-time environment. As well, the holodeck will show you perspectives, an object you will throw away will seem to go very far from you. The walls of the holodeck will show you the object shrinking away, whilst, as proven by Captain Kirk and Spock in one of the book of William Shatner, the object hits the wall and fall on the floor, whilst the computer hides it from you. All that to explain that when you are throwing away a shoe in the air, the shoe does not go anywhere, it stays by the wall, whilst the walls will show the object shrinking away, whilst your brain interpret the shrinking process as if the shoe has landed at a much bigger distance. In a way, this is a very good analogy of the universe. If Spock walks away from Kirk, the Holodeck will hide Spock from Kirk points of view and will show on the wall Spock getting smaller as he goes along. The poor Spock will think that he is going somewhere in the distance as well, Kirk will get smaller the same way and other objects like a tree in the distance will become bigger on the wall. Eventually, even if he has not moved one centimetre, the tree will no longer be a representation on the wall, it will be there just beside him and he will be able to climb it. This is how I picture the universe. We do not really move, there is no walls thought, but the effect is the same. It is just a play of energy-matter in a closed space-time environment. Everything is at the same point in the universe, still, everything is made of energy-matter and just shrink or enhance before our eyes. My guess is that we are living on an elaborate 360 degree computer screen.

I am aware of the flaws. I am aware of this incredible logic that tells me: "But look, there is a distance, there are objects, there is movement, there is speed, there is time, you cannot just throw that in the bin! We have thousands of years of science and a whole bunch of equations to explain the whole universe, the very small and the very large". And I say, consider everything I said, you might be able to get something out of it. Because the way you see the universe has flaws as well. And your bunch of sets of equations are like the history of philosophy. They all change again and again through each decades. I can only guess that I had to be the one to present the craziest philosophy and science of all for the new millennium.

The Superstring Theory in all this stands, and I will only retain one thing here: light is a vibration of the fifth dimension. Well, if light is a vibration, could matter be a vibration of little strings as well? If everything is in fact just vibration, clearly it can vibrate like the dots on the walls of the holodeck and pretend that something you see is in fact just a vibration? I remember that sometimes a wave acts like particles and vice-versa. Could it all be the same thing? Everything, finally, could be strings, matter, energy and light, answering to the same laws. Whatever if it is in the very large or the very small.

As I said in my letter to Mr Kaku, I do not believe that the laws of atoms are different from the laws of the planets. Time and speed are the only difference, it goes too fast or too slow. We are inside or outside. Time has stopped or time goes too fast. Speed has stopped or goes beyond our view. Really, if I could shrink you as small as an electron, time will then go much faster for you (millions of years will go by for you whilst for me it will be seconds), you could applied Einstein's theory in there. As well, if I could make you bigger than the universe and put you outside, you could apply the Quantum Mechanics theory to our universe of planets and stars. It is only a matter of perspective.

Of course, it does not mean that if you want to calculate the position of an electron it will ever be like calculating the position of a planet. Unless you could get out of it all, or freeze all the atomic structures. But I believe that if everything is just a matter of things that are shrunk and things that are enhanced, and that everything is really the same size, then there is maybe a way to shrink or to enhance ourselves, since we are after all made of energy-matter like the rest of the universe and that we can now find ways to get somewhere very far in an instant. As well, we already know that by going at almost the speed of light we shrink like an accordion for an observer who does not move. This requires attention.

Could the fact that we shrink or enhance is proof of the other dimensions? Can we see through that other dimensions at work? Obviously, when we shrink, there is not just the length, the width, the depth and time, there is another process at work, perhaps new dimensions to be added in our calculations.

One of the last episode of Deep Space Nine in Star Trek, a roundabout shrinks, like if it was possible. Then again, they invented a special place in space where everything shrinks for whatever reason. I am not sure if it is possible to reproduce that in a laboratory or in an experience. I shall watch it again just in case they had a plausible explanation.

At the end of this part one of my essay, I can only say one thing to any reader. Please go over each sentences one by one and comment each of them, I would like to develop that further. I think that I am on the way to perhaps a small little revolution… if I can put everything together. Like philosophy, this whole thing will not mean anything unless read carefully at least twice. Otherwise it will never sink in, you will just completely freak out at the first line and reject everything. Thanks.

Dear Mr Michio Kaku,

As I told you before, I am more a philosopher than a scientist (and perhaps I am a know-nothing science guy and admit it openly), but I have read everything I could about science, philosophy and mystics. All my life I thought I had been here just to put everything back into question and take nothing for granted. I think I might finally came to the point of doing just that and I am sure that even then, everything will be put back into question again very soon. In fact, many of my ideas come from your book Hyperspace and perhaps you will even say that there is nothing new here. It is true, everything I am saying here seems to almost be in your book, but everywhere through the pages, without one little interpretation to link the whole thing together. I am sure though that I have brought everything one step further. Of course I do not have all the maths to develop theories out of it, and maybe you can shed some light over that since my ideas are changing science as we know it. What about if I was to tell you that distance, speed and the infinities are something of the past? Something that we, observers, were able to calculate things out of them, of what we thought we were seeing, but really that was just a way to see reality, and that it is amazing that it could have worked and probably will still help us despite the fact that the universe is not what we thought it was? Yes, you can understand me since the Superstring theory, with its ten dimensions, ask the same thing from any reader or scientist approaching it.

You will have to admit one thing before rejecting my essay: can you really believe that a ten dimensional world will not ask all science and visions of the universe as we know it to change overnight? Some people might think it is just a matter of adding N dimensions to certain equations, but it is certainly not. Others might think that, since those six other higher dimensions are so small, having curled up in a ball, they have nothing to do with us. They might think that with our three dimensional world, those other dimensions have no influence whatsoever on us. Certainly not. I answer the question about where they are. It is already something. They are at the edge of the merry-go-round wheel, and once the tour is finished, you find that your six higher dimensions are as big as the three spatial others. That basically they are as big as the others no matter what. The fact that the wheel is turning and that they have shrunk from our perspective does not change the fact that they are surrounding us. We live in this ten dimensional world. But you know that already. I would just like to add that the Shrinking Theory might explain certain things, which I am not even aware of. I admit my theory could have been developed without considering the Superstring and any more dimensions. I think it is important to point that out since overall if the strings are rejected, my theory does not crumble and die with it (most probable my theory will die before though).

I am certain that you have a better explanation to all the questions I am trying to answer, but I must have passed it without realising it whilst reading your book and all the web sites I visited. In that case, please answer all the questions this essay has posed and I will enjoy seeing you destroying my arguments, since what you will bring me will shed enough light on these problems and I might be able to develop it further. I am not dreaming, everything here will be destroyed. I do not have an E=mc² to make it acceptable. Perhaps you will bring me an equation if you cannot yourself reject it and start to think about it. Who knows? But since you are already working on this Superstring theory and that it is unifying the very large and the very small, I believe you might not need my help. Please find below more developments.

It starts with the Shrinking Process. As I said, there is no distance neither speed in the universe, there is only a shrinking process that we mistook with distance and speed:

Main points of my theory

1) Everything in space is located at a same point.

2) Therefore there is no distance neither speed, only the illusion of it.

3) Everything enhances before our eyes or shrinks beyond visibility. Everything (reality) is just a vibration in higher dimensions (like light).

4) Distance is only the effect of things shrinking or enhancing before our eyes. Rulers shrink as well, then it is irrelevant outside the point of view of the observer.

5) Speed is only the rate at which things shrink or enhance. Speed = the shrinking/enhancing rate of things.

6) Time is only a tool invented by men which works at one specific point at a specific rate of shrinking or enhancing. Beyond that it changes, it is not relevant. It is irrelevant outside the point of view of the observer. Time becomes interesting once we can calculate its rate depending on how shrunk or how enhanced things are. At that point, we do not use time anymore as we used to, we use the rate at which it goes to calculate how shrunk or enhanced an object is. The rate of time change if we go faster or slower. Time in itself cannot help us in this kind of universe. We have to be able to calculate its rate and compare with other rates of other objects moving or not in the universe (See Lorentz Transformation Equations).

7) The faster you go, the more you shrink and the more time go slower. The slower you go, the more you enhance and time goes faster.

8) Planets are particles that go so slow that time seems to have stopped, therefore we see it large, enhanced.

9) Atoms are particles that go so fast that time goes beyond our view, therefore we see it small, shrunk.

10) The very small is as much here as the very large, planets and atoms are the same size. The fact that it has shrunk before our eyes or enhanced before our eyes does not change anything. The very small is only small from our point of view. Shrink yourself from the very large to the very small, and you will now see the very large as being the very small (if you could live on an atom, you would see the atom as being a solar system, and our sun and earth as being atomic structures).

11) A particle can be at two places at the same time because there is no such thing as places. A particle can be everywhere at the same time, everything is at the same point in space.

12) As the Superstring theory says, there is more than three dimensions. Our problem is that science is based on a three dimensional world. Our problem is that we have a theory for the very large and one for the very small. I said that there is no difference between the very large and the very small, therefore the same laws must apply. The observer point of view have to change, that is what I said. But I am not so sure anymore if the point of view of the observer must change. It is just a matter of things shrinking or enhancing. True, the rate at which time and speed go makes it difficult to make calculations that can be right for both rate (fast or slow). But it must be possible once we clarify what really the universe is. And already the new equations and mathematics needed for the Superstring theory about the higher dimensions seem to link everything together, the equations of the very large with the equations of the very small.

Those concepts have been invented by humans living in flatland, it should perhaps have never existed. At least, we should have perhaps never attempted to put some definitions to those concepts. At least we can change those definitions as we go along, and perhaps it will be another mistake. But here we are, I will try to see how it fits in my theory.

Time seems to be constant only in one place at a time in a three dimensional world. Time has no meaning beyond that. Time is relative depending on the point you are in space and the speed you travel at. Meaning that time is a tool we invented, an instrument that becomes tricky, like our rulers, in the universe. Rulers shrink or enhance depending on the same precepts. My guess is that there is no more time in the universe than there is distance. Both shrink and enhance with the observer. Therefore it is something that exists only if an observer exists in a three dimensional world. Having said that, distance and time seem to exist perfectly in our three dimensional world and are essential tools to direct us, to locate us depending on our rate of shrinking/enhancing to compare with another rate of shrinking/enhancing somewhere else. It is not excluded that we will need the rate of time and rulers to calculate our illusion of the universe. Still, Einstein linked time with space, making time the fourth dimension. True, I do not know enough about all the mechanics of this to say that time cannot be a dimension, I can only try to understand. Since we shrink or enhance in space, and time's rate change accordingly, it could be seen as another dimension. But really, the fact that we can link time to space, does not make it another dimension. Or please help me to understand that.

Space and time linked together make more sense. Already time makes sense only at a specific point in space. More awkward is to answer the idea that space does not exist as we know it. What is the place of time in there? A tool, like space, who does not really have an explanation in higher dimensions. Still, hopefully these concepts will still help us defining equations for mathematicians and physicists. Mathematicians can continue to get lost in numbers, but poor physicists, they will have to confront a global new cosmology.

Energy seems to remain, even if it was to be just a vibration in higher dimensions. The amount of energy needed to shrink something or enhance something depends on how much matter there is multiplied by the constant speed of light squared. Now, how can we keep that? Especially if it does not work in the very small? The speed of light, this constant, is not wrong in the very large. But how do we calculate the amount of energy in the very small? Energy is not what we think it is. We do not need a certain amount of energy to go from one point to another, we need a certain amount of energy to change the configuration of the universe. Energy has the power to change the configuration of the universe and, probably, if we were really masters of the energy, we could create whatever universe we wanted in any configuration desired. We could create universes very easily since space, time, speed and forces are irrelevant. I am not exactly sure what is the role or definition of Energy in higher dimensions.

Matter is just a by-product of Energy. They are interchangeable, Matter is created out of Energy, in one word, Matter is Energy. In higher dimensions, it is only a vibration. I could go as far as saying that these vibrations vibrates in order to give matter some forms. It is also my belief that one day we will be able to somehow pick up those vibrations like if they were sounds and reproduce those vibrations to create matter out of energy in whatever form we want. All this seem to be the logical next step after radios, televisions, machines that reproduce smells, tastes and the sense of touch. I do not know what will become of religions then, or philosophy, but the mechanics of the existence are every day closer to our understanding. In higher dimensions, I am not sure if matter really exists. Or, it is certainly distorted beyond recognition.

Since Energy and Matter are interchangeable, so is science saying, it is not too much to say that we are as much Energy as Matter. Everything is as much Energy as it is Matter. What is energy again? Light as been described has a vibration, a simple vibration of the fifth dimension according to the Superstring theory. Well, stop me since I am ignorant, but photons already look like particles. It has been said that sometimes waves and particles have been acting the same in laboratories. Sometimes it is better to consider waves being particles or particles being waves. Stop me again, it seems to me to be all the same thing. Since matter is energy and vice-versa, particles can act like waves and photons like particles. It seems to me that at one point or another, it is all the same thing. If light can be a vibration, everything can be a vibration, especially seen in higher dimensions. The Superstring theory, where we see little strings everywhere gluing everything together, I do not reject it. I do not know enough though, but my ideas are a consequence of it.

I do not know enough about the Superstring theory at this stage to elaborate that much. The only thing I would like to say is that the idea of having more dimensions, like ten (or 26) rolling in a sphere to become smaller than the Planck length, brought me the question: where are those dimensions? Too small to see. But in my definition, too small to see must mean in one little place that cannot even be contain in a proton! How can they affect the universe we are living in then? It is because even if the other dimensions are too small, they are still all around the edge of the universe, I mean they are still all around us, everywhere at the same time, sharing the same space, as big as the planets and the stars. That is the only explanation. Therefore, the other dimensions are everywhere at the same time, not only in one little lost atom composing a lost little bit of sand on a beach.

For example, my vision of the universe, as Michio Kaku visualise in HYPERSPACE, can be resume as a wheel that we find in the drive-ins, those wheels where children play by turning the wheel as much as they can and jumping on it. The more they are in the centre, the more likely they can sustain the force that wants to push them out of the wheel. The more they are on the edge of the wheel, the more the force is making it impossible for them to stay on the wheel, eventually they would be ejected out of the universe, if that was possible. On the edge it is going faster. As well, the universe is bent, the wheel is bent, almost becoming a sphere. People on the edge are shrinking to compare with the ones in the centre. In the universe, as I see it, it is like that. What is on the edge goes faster, therefore it shrinks beyond what our eyes can see, like the atomic structures, like the other higher dimensions. And since this shrinking process is bending the wheel, space is curved as seen in Einstein's theory. In the centre, where we are, as humans, it is enhanced, so we can see the stars and the planets. Stop the wheel then you will find everything at the same place, no shrinking, no enhancing. This is how we have to conceptualise the universe if we want to draw any lines, any equations that fits the Theory of Everything.

Am I competent enough to draw this great and simple equation of the Theory of Everything? No. Can I present my ideas to help others to reach it? Perhaps. As best as I can, I will try to determine it anyway.

OK. I said that Space-Time was relative, according to Einstein's theory of Relativity. Energy-matter seems to be more accurate for our purpose, still, it is only an illusion portrayed by Space and Time. How can everything be link in this theory of everything? And is it really relevant still?

Let's see. If there is no space nor distance nor time, it means that all energy-matter is contain in the same place, I mean at the same point in space, like if there was no space. Apparently, in higher dimensions, energy-matter seems to take another definition. Another dimension if you like. Like light can be interpreted as a vibration of little strings, it might be the same for all seen matter. Vibration of energy making us think or see it as matter. So really, according to this, we have only energy left to deal with. This kind of energy field can create the illusion of space-time, the illusion of distance. It can stretch the illusion to show planets and stars and galaxies, and the atomic structures. But everything is at the same place, everything is stretched or shrunk only to our eyes, only to our three dimensional world eyes. If you want to reach the Planck length, you just have to go as fast as the atomic structures, not necessarily developed new powerful microscopes.

As someone said (was it Newton?), the total sum of energy in the universe must equates zero. (I took that from an Internet site, actually as a coincidence Michio Kaku is the author answering a question from the public on

 http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/html/uns_answer.html: "This does not violate the conservation of matter and energy; the matter of the universe has positive energy, but the gravitational field has negative energy, such that the total energy for a closed universe is zero, so it takes zero energy to create a closed universe.") Therefore, energy might not even exist. Now, I just destroyed all the relevant elements that physics has tried to link together for almost a century. It is perhaps relevant in our universe to still consider energy, but it is not excluded that there is something else involved other than energy in higher dimensions that explain what we consider like being energy.

We have to link the four main forces into all that, at least explain them… so I am not out of the woods yet. Well, energy and matter seem inescapable, we see it, we need it to move. Still, in higher dimensions, I am not sure if it is necessary. That makes me think that someone who would like to finally brings the theory of everything out into the light, might have to reinvent every concepts there is in science. And I do hope that scientists working on the Superstring theory are aware of what really equations in higher dimensions can bring to a reinterpretation of the universe. Because blindly we could discover equations that works, without explaining why. But since we are living in a three dimensional world, as far as we can see it, and our equations work well in this three dimensional world, it might still be possible to elaborate an equation for the Theory of Everything limited to three dimensions.

I am a bit at a loss in explaining the forces in my theory for the only reason that it does not seem relevant to explain them. Something rules matter and energy in this universe, fine. It does not change anything to my ideas, unless these forces can be better explained in higher dimensions, for example, if they can all be linked in one major force of everything and if this force is not really an effect of something else that we could not really perceived, but that we called force.

In three dimensions we have a space, a time, energy and matter. We have four forces that keep everything together or apart: Electromagnetic force (magnetic forces, electricity), the strong nuclear force (energy that fuels the stars, as well, unleashed in hydrogen bomb, we have a nuclear bomb), the weak nuclear force (radioactive decay, radioactivity, a by-product of the strong nuclear force. Basically, we are only talking about one force when talking about strong and weak nuclear forces) and the gravitational force (what glue together the planets and the stars, us to the earth, and atoms together).

Apparently, the strong nuclear force would like to blast our sun apart, when the gravitational force tends to crush the star. A good balance of those two forces keep the sun in one piece. Obviously they are working against each other, suggesting there are two different forces in there. The electromagnetic force on the sun will act like on earth I suppose, from one pole to the other. I think we are getting to Newton's laws of gravity. Two masses attract each other. When Einstein said that, really, only the curvature of space-time made that happened, like if the whole universe was on a blanket and all matter was falling in a vortex like in a hole of a sink, to eventually crush all together. If Einstein thought he could explain a force through the curvature of space, I believe this could be extended to say that he did not really think there was a force involved? The sink analogy is interesting. Sometimes we could imagine that a whole galaxy really is just matter like water in a sink going down a hole where actually it is just shrinking beyond our view.

How can we link those three (four) forces? My guess is that those forces are not really what we think they are. In my vision of the universe, I would prefer to not consider those forces. They have no place in it. If matter is energy, whatever if it is electromagnetic, nuclear or gravitational forces that regulates its movements, it is all energy and energy equates zero. Perhaps it is too easily said, but I cannot imagine those forces in higher dimensions. In fact, I can actually imagine totally new kinds of forces. What kind of forces can actually link together all these dimensions whilst six (or seven) are so small and the other three (or four) are so large? What kind of forces can keep together a universe all at the same point which present a configuration of things shrunk and enhanced but still all at the same point?

Any Force is nothing less than Energy. I can say that forces regulates the movement of matter, and matter is energy. So forces like the gravitational force is energy regulating how the fields are moving. We identified the way they act, still, they must act in other ways as well. In my new definition of the universe, forces are not only regulating the way energy is gluing everything together or tends to crush stars apart, but must be linked as well to the very small in a fashion never really considered. The fact that there is a huge universe in the infinitesimal small must certainly influence the very large universe as a whole, since the very small is as big as the very large. That might explain some of the mysteries about the very large, about the missing matter. The matter is not missing, it is just beyond our perspective, it has just shrunk before our eyes.

Michio Kaku says on page 231 of Hyperspace: "It seems remarkable that such a simple idea - that higher dimensions can unify space with time, and that a "force" can be explained by the warping of that space-time - would lead to such a rich diversity of physical consequences".

So Einstein was saying that a force can be explained by the warping of space-time. Now I could add that a force can be explained by the vibrations of the higher dimensions. As I said, perhaps there is no such thing as forces in higher dimensions, but in a three dimensional world, forces are what make it possible to keep together the configuration of the universe. They only act further than we thought.

F=ma. The Force equates our Mass multiplied by our Acceleration. But we do not really have an acceleration, only a rate at which we shrink or enhance. So the force equates our mass multiplied by the shrinking/enhancing rate.

Yes, we will be able to observe things and draw equations from it, still, the universe is not what we think it is. Everything is at the same point in space and shrinks or enhances. But yes, we are talking about matter and energy here. In higher dimensions, there is no such thing as things shrinking and enhancing. That is the whole point, the shrinking process is only something of this three dimensional world. There is no acceleration, only a rate at which matter shrinks or enhances. So a Force equates our Mass multiplied by the rate at which we shrink or enhance. Even this force must be relative, could it be the same depending on our perspective? What about a ship frozen in a black hole or a ship that has shrink like an accordion because it was going too fast? Would we see the same forces interacting with the ship from our point of view than the people actually on the ship? Perhaps, I am not sure.

Let's take a black hole. In there, matter can shrinks beyond all imagination. The gravitational force there is too big to let light out. In itself, a black hole become a baby universe. Meaning we might be living in a black hole. Meaning matter can contract itself in one single little point, all matter can become so dense, we cannot imagine it could sustain life. Perhaps it can. Perhaps, in there, it is like in here. Everything as simply shrunk. Why is it that there is so much energy in one little electron? It is because if everything shrinks, there is still the same mass and energy at the same point in the universe. At this point, thinking that everything is in fact at the same point in the universe is not very difficult. Matter can always shrink at an infinite rate. The energy will stay the same, meaning for us it will seems like there is a lot of energy in one little particle. Really this particle is as big as anything else and contain no more energy than it should if we could see it as big as we see planets in the very large. Really, I believe that if we could see in higher dimensions, this little particle would be as big as a planet in the very large, even, in three dimensions it is a planet that we could see through our telescopes. Being able to use this energy, I mean the energy of a small particle containing the whole energy of the universe, must be possible. But then, we should be able to use the energy of the very large as well, since there is no difference. The very large is the very small. It is just an illusion to see them as very large or very small.

Simple example. A car approaching towards us in the distance seems very small. The more it approaches us, the bigger it becomes. Then, if it stops just in front of us and we glue our head to the hood, we will only see the painting. Has this car really went from far in the distance with a certain speed and finally stopped in front of us (where we glued our head to it)? Or was it here all along with us, it has just moved itself which provoked a shrinking process from small to big, to the very big where we only see the painting in front of our eyes? Well, give me more than three dimensions to deal with, and I cannot really confirm that this car really covered a distance at a certain speed in this amount of time. Since time is relative anyway, someone in hyperspace might not have a watch to calculate the time. This person in hyperspace could not really have seen an object move from one point to another since this is only possible in a three dimensional world. And speed in there, I do not know what it could look like in their higher universe.

I did not want to come into this flatland story, where a two dimensional being cannot imagine a three dimensional world, therefore we cannot imagine a ten dimensional world, but it seems clear to me that some of our scientific background will have to go if we are to consider this. Perhaps everything can be unified, still we will have to explain what it really means.

Another example, the screen of a computer can simulate a car in the distance coming towards us. Pixels on the screen will project in a two dimensional world what my brain will conceptualise as an object in three dimensions coming towards me. I can glue my head to the screen and see only the blue painting of the car, exactly like with the real car. Now, apparently computers can help us seeing in more than three dimensions. What kind of car will then be able to get from a distance and get to me so I can glue my head to it? One dimension, it would only be a point. Two dimensions and the computer will show me lines. Three dimensions, it can simulate those lines being small and becoming bigger and bigger until it shows me only the painting of the hood. If the computer was trying to simulate me ten dimensions, it is true, I have no idea of what could happened.

Starting from the idea that a car covering a distance at a certain speed in a certain amount of time is only possible in three dimensions, makes me think that all this cannot be the basis of a theory of everything. Why should we consider other dimensions then? Perhaps they do not exist? The problem is that it explains a lot of things when considered, unifying the very large with the very small. The first one being why is it that whatever our speed, even almost the speed of light, light will still fly in front of us at the speed of light? And why is it that an observer who does not move at all will see light going at the same speed and will see us stopped in time and shrunk like accordions?

The only explanation to why wherever you are and whatever the speed you are travelling at, light will still keep its constant speed of "c", is because there is not really any distance nor speed as we know it. It is very relative, perhaps even more than time. Rulers shrink and enhance, time is changing, speed becomes relative depending of your point of view. Perhaps there is no such things as distance, time or speed. There is only a shrinking or enhancing process, and these are only concepts of a three dimensional world.

If you cannot retain anything of what I said before, please do answer me about why the speed of light remains always constant whatever if you are not moving or if you are running after the light at almost its speed. And please explain to me why suddenly an observer who as stopped see another person in a car following light at almost its speed shrinking like an accordion.

My explanation might be wrong, still I cannot explain it otherwise. Everything is at the same point in space, and distance and speed are only some kind of an interpretation of reality.

Stephen Harking's wave function universe already consider these many parallel universes like waves, and waves can vibrate using superstrings. This wave function universe implies many parallel universes composing a multiverse, and this does not make any sense if we continue to conceptualise the universe the way we do. In this kind of multiverse, the poor cat of Schrödinger exist dead in one universe, alive in another, and at an infinite other states between life and death in as many universes. How could there be millions and millions of the same cat in as many universes if we have to superpose all of them?

The only explanation, as I believe the Superstring theory states (or should states anyway), is perhaps that each string in the universe is composing a different universe. Or is it? I should not write without reading first. But my time is so counted, which is ironic, that really I cannot even afford writing this without paying a huge price in my social life. So reading is even worse, I usually do that in the Underground going to work in central London (not when I am coming back though, because I am too tired, I usually fall asleep). It does not matter whether one string can compose a universe or not, if many little strings can compose many universes, sometimes very similar, what I really want to say is that this idea is only possible if matter can double itself or multiplied itself in a same space. I do think that the Superstring theory can explain that, since the universe and all matter can be considered as vibrations only, many different vibrations could bring many similar or less similar universes all in a same space.

The Shrinking theory can explain how it is possible to have everything in the same space. If everything shrinks or enhanced, there is an infinite amount of matter you can compact at the same place, since there is not really any place, distance or space. You can superpose as many universes in the same space as you want.

A nice analogy is like this computer file in which I write these lines at the moment. I made already more than 20 copies of this file to make sure that I will not loose it. Each new file is a little bit different that the previous one, still, I can bring all 20 files at the same time and at the same place in MS-Word. All these files have a different configuration of 0 and 1 (but almost similar) and I am free to change and/or delete these configurations. The universe could be like these files and the configurations of all the universes could be as simple as little 0 and 1 of the binary language which put the sun there, and not somewhere else, and the earth with all its particles in here instead of in another galaxy. If humans were like a virus contaminating one of these files, they could only probably see the 0 and the 1 of that file. A little neural networks in there and humans could learn how to contaminate the other files.

My point is that if the configuration of the universe can be saved like a file, copied as many times we want, as long as we have the technology to do so, there is no need for space and distance. Many universes can cohabit together. With energy we can get rid of the universe, store with 0 and 1 every little particles of the universe in a virtual storage facility, then use those 0 and 1 and energy to recreate matter as it was, or differently if we want. We can even recreate two and three universes at the same place, since matter is energy and everything is already at the same point in space (because there is no space). In a way, the universe could be just like ideas, like thoughts. Energy, in a way, in our brain, can build a configuration of the universe. We can superpose as many configurations in there as we want. It is the best way to conceptualise that there is not really a space as we know it in higher dimensions. If we could save the configuration of the universe, change it and reload it 20 times, like we do when manipulating the electrons in a computer, and now photons with the new generation of computers coming, we would have as many universes as we like.

We already transform matter on the small scale beyond imagination. Eventually perhaps we will be able to transform matter on a large scale. Then perhaps eventually we will be able to give to the universe the configuration we want. At that point, the kind of energy we will then be using will give us the possibility to move planets out of orbit, change the position of stars, see what they are really composing as far as the table of elements can be applied to stars, transform what it is that they are composing, exactly like on the very small.

If we have to explain the weird facts of the Quantum Mechanics theory, that a particle can be at two places at the same time and that a particle exists in all possible places it can be, then one day perhaps we will have to face a whole different music. Finally physics becomes interesting, from science fiction to science fact. And we are so close from breaking this barrier, just considering the new photons computers which process information using computer that do not exist in our universe. Using photons that can be at many places at the same time, computers are now processing in the multiverse, through other computers in parallel universes. For us to cross that barrier after we know for certain that computers can do it, there is not much of a step. If this can be applied to different sectors, who knows, we might travel using cars or planes who does not exist in our universe. You can start imagining all the possibilities, perhaps even without explaining it.

My God, it looks like I am writing a whole book here. If only I had more time… I am sure I could read everything and bring a new light wave into it all. If you think I am totally out of track, please tell me. Obvious flaws will come out, then I can think about it further. Please be constructive, not destructive. I might be wrong, but perhaps not about everything. And who knows, I might be proved right in the future. And it will be nice for me to feel like I should continue thinking about the universe, physics and mathematics even if I have nothing to do with it. It is true, and it is obvious, I have only read some books and already I wrote all that. I hope I am proving a certain potential to come up with something interesting one day worth writing about and being considered. Let's be constructive. At least nobody can say that at 25 I am too young, Einstein was 26 when he wrote his E=mc². And it is my belief that if he had been older and more into physics and peers, he might have lost sight and not think the unthinkable.

Part 4 is gone forever... anyway I was not saying anything in it. I inserted letters and answers instead...

Dear Aquamarine Sea Water,

Your inquiry pleases me and so I will take the time to answer you. It will be a very good exercise as well since I do need to finally write an article for the magazines eventually.

I am glad you took the bother to look at it enough to be puzzled. Now I need to tell you that I am trying to sensibilise people to this idea which, though it sounds crazy, the more you read into the new theories in Physics, does not sounds so crazy after all. I have received e-mails from very high people within the scientific world of Theoritical Physics and they could not dismiss the idea. Other e-mails were very positive and they really said they could see it, what I am trying to say.

My theory is best understood when one as read the new advancements in the Superstrings Theory (that Mr Michio Kaku wrote much about in his book HyperSpace). In there, they prove that mathematically there are more than the usual three spatial dimensions that our brain can see, and me I say that if there is as much as 10 dimensions in all, our brain has got a problem when it sees only three.

The more puzzling thing comes from the fourth dimension of time, which is, since Einstein, relative. Now, why time is relative? Time is relative and changing depending on where you are and the speed you are going at only because time, like the spatial dimensions, can only be interpreted by our brain depending on a frame of reference.

Where you are now, is a frame of reference. Where I am now, is a frame of reference. And where the aliens from Vega are right now (see the movie Contact), is also a frame of reference. At this point of reference, you look around and you see the Universe. Now, an electron going around a nucleus is much like a planet going around the sun. If a human being was living on this electron, that would be a frame of reference. From the point of view of our alien on the electron, when he would be looking at us, he would see us very small, far away. Never in his mind he would think us as huge to compare with himself. On the contrary, he would see us as very small. It is because distance is as relative as time. All reality is just a question of perspective.

There are simply no distance neither speed in the universe. Everything is located at a same point. And everything is just getting bigger and smaller from the point of view of where you stand. When your mom leaves your house, she does not move at all. She is always there with you. She only becomes smaller to your eyes. If you leave the house, you are not getting smaller, your house gets smaller from your perspective.

These ideas come from two single facts. First, time is relative according to Einstein. If you are motionless and look at a photon going into space, you will see it go at 300,000 km an hour in front of you. If your mom climbs into a ship that goes at almost the speed of light in the same direction as this photon, you will see your mom almost reaching that photon. But your mom will see the photon going in front of her at 300,000 km an hour too. Exactly like you. That is the Theory of relativity of Einstein and nobody seems to have bothered giving it an explanation. It is just how physics work. Well, there is only one explanation. How could both of you see light going at 300,000 km an hour if you are not moving and your mom goes at 299,999 km an hour following that photon?

We calculate the speed of an object by calculating the distance it is covering in a certain amount of time. Time is relative, meaning it is changing from your frame of reference. That is Einstein’s conclusion. But there is more. The only way both you and your mom could see the speed of light as constant, despite the fact that she is going at almost the speed of
light and that your are motionless, would be if your mom was as motionless as you are.

Now, you are going to tell me that I am crazy, you can see that your mom is following that photon, and she almost reaches it. She is after all going at 299,999 km an hour. But that is your perspective. Her perspective is quite different. For her, light is as far from her that it is for you. Your mom is as motionless as you. You think she is moving that fast because she is getting smaller from your point of you. She has shrunk, she is shrinking faster the faster she goes. That is the only possible way of explaining relativity. There is no speed in the universe, there is no distance. Only the illusion of it. At that point you will say that I am crazy. But I can back up my point, which bring us to the second fact that we can observe in nature.

I am sure you are not familiar with Lorentz Transformation Equations, but they are always used in Astronomy and at NASA (or are they?). These equations are calculating where a ship or a star really is in the sky. Because it is never where we see it is. We have observed that an object going at almost the speed of light shrink in the direction it is going, it is somehow getting spaghettised... of course, this is what we see, the ship is actually somewhere else and we use the Lorentz transformation equations to locate where the ship is. Basically, this prove that the ship can shrink. So it goes well with my Shrinking Theory, it explains how it is possible that everybody, no matter their speed, can see light going at a constant speed.

This kind of universe I am proposing is not too far fetched as this is exactly the universe you can find in a computer screen simulating a virtual reality. I am just somehow proposing that the reality we see is just too similar to the one in a computer. Basically, our intelligence, our senses are not so different than the technology we created. Too often Science Fiction authors have mentioned and almost proven that Artificial Intelligence can be as intelligent as us. We are identical, except that one is built out of technology, the other is biological. But we are living in a virtual world. Now, if you want to extrapolate on that, go ahead. I say there is no distance, nor speed in the universe. Only the illusion of it. We do not move across a distance, we only shrink or expand relatively to a frame of reference.

I hope I am clear enough. If not, read again my theory and it should make sense:

www.themarginal.com/relativity.htm

Perhaps the applications in real life that I am developing in my Science Fiction novel could help you visualise what I am saying:

www.themarginal.com/universe.htm

If you need more information or you are not convinced, please come back to me, as it is important for me to be clearer, otherwise I will die without anyone understanding my definition of the universe. Not that it matters, the more we are discovering things in Physics, the more we will get to what I am saying.

Note: I am afraid, but your Manhood "is" Shrinking...

Vôtre,

Roland Michel Tremblay

L’Anarchiste Couronné Littérature: www.themarginal.com


______________________________________________________________ 

Hello Roland,

Thanks for clearing me up on those points (somewhat). I don’t know if you know any philosophy, but one guy (I forget his name) talks about the universe the way you do.

"Please you have to remember his name!"

He refers to the fact that we don’t see all of everything all of the time. For example, if you see a guy’s head over a wall, you just assume that his body exists. If we only see parts of things, then we can’t say for sure that the other parts exist, except for our understanding (infer). He also talks about sizes getting bigger as we approach them.

I don’t think he reaches the same conclusion as you. But it’s an interesting argument for questioning the nature of the universe.

"You are right, I don’t think he is talking about the same thing. But he seems to get close to my ideas about things getting bigger. It reminds me that book from that priest about people living in a world in two dimensions who could not comprehend things in three dimensions."

The problem I have with your theory is usefulness. Descartes argued that the only thing we can say for sure is "I exist." In effect, he ruled out distance just as you have, then he argued that we have a "clear and distinct perception" to argue that the outside world does exist. This argument was debatable at best.

"My God, Descartes said that? How come he has not developed it further? Or has he?"

The point is that its not much use, unless you can do something with it.

"www.themarginal.com/universe.htm"

"Transport: as there is no distance, it seems obvious that a ship can go anywhere instantly, and we just have not found a way yet to do so. Propulsion is our solution now, in Star Trek they have warp drive, warping space to move out of space. Neither time nor distance exist in general outside our universe, it only seems to exist within the boundaries of our space in expansion."

Your theory, I think could be saying one of two things. Either there is "distance" and we haven’t proven it to satisfaction yet. Or, there is no such thing and we have been deceived into believing that it exists.

"Yes, you present it in a nice manner. I do not say I have all the answers. I think there is a problem and Einstein himself saw it. He said that his theories of relativity were incomplete because they break down at the Big Bang and in the infinitely small where Quantum Mechanics takes over. Now Michio Kaku believes that The Superstrings Theory unifies these two, by adding many more dimensions mathematically. I think that we perceive distance, but there is no distance. I think we have been deceived into believing that it exists. Please read my main answer below after your e-mails where I discuss my point of view."

If this is the case, then your effort should be to answer the question of "why then, do we think that distance exists?"

"We think that distance exists because it is just a way to interpret it. You could interpret it differently, and that is what I do."

Or to answer "what is wrong with science today, that it doesn’t prove the concept of distance to my satisfaction?"

"It does prove it. I can extrapolate it further. Newton was not wrong, he just saw it differently. Einstein was closer, but he did not push it further."

If you can truly answer either one of these (not just a guess), then your contribution will be great. Just a thought.

"You mean, if I can prove it beyond doubt? With for example a little E=mc². Which will not be easy. I cannot find the time to talk to you, even less learn all mathematics to develop it further. I do know though that I am willing to do this and I just hope I will get the chance one day, when I retire perhaps. By then someone else will have found out. "

By the way, I’m curious about how you can go about getting your own website, much like the one you have. I’m working on some ideas of my own and I’d like to get it out there in the not too distant future. Thanks in advance for your advice.

"Oh well, it is not easy for a first time. You have much to learn about. Doing the page, publishing it on the web. Well, you will need something like FrontPage to do your page. But in MS Word you can also save your page in HTML format then publish it on the web. You can use Netscape Editor as well, which is part of your Netscape Browser. In there you can import a file in text format: "doc.txt". In order to publish it you will need CuteFTP or similar programme connecting you to your server (provided you get one first with some space on it to publish your page). Once your page is on-line, you will have to do some marketing to tell people that it exists. You will have to submit your pages to different search engines. It will take you forever to learn all that, but hey, you will have to do it one day. In the meantime, if you wish, I can do you a page on my website. In that case just send me whatever you want in any format and I will build you a page. But do not feel obliged. I have much pages to do, but yours would be my main priority."

_______________________________________________________________

 -----Original Message-----
From: Aquamarine Sea water <unquenched@hotmail.com>
To: rm@themarginal.com <rm@themarginal.com>
Date: Thursday, August 19, 1999 12:50

Hi Roland,

It seems that you’re busy or something. Anyway, as I said, I’m working on a theory based on my interpretation of quantum mechanics, which I believe agrees with relativity. It makes everything (pretty much) make sense.

"Well, good luck! I wish I could read that!"

Your theory has given me some insight in two areas of my theory. My idea that you must be right about something caused me to rethink some things.

"Well! That is results! I am flattered and intrigued. You must tell me what, so I can perhaps help you to develop it further."

My theory is not complete yet, but once it is, I’ll put it out there.

"A theory by definition will never be complete."

One thing that makes mine vastly different from yours is the fact that mine includes the existence of distance.

"It still can, whether there is distance or not. As I explain in my main answer below."

What I thought you must be right about is the speed of light idea. That our speed must be zero or lightspeed. What if I told you that I’ve been able to reconcile this fact and still have distance exist? Would you be curious?

"Is that a tease? Will I have to wait until you develop your ideas further for another million of years? Of course I am curious. As I said, I am always ready to reconsider my ideas, since I am quite ignorant, I admit it."

The other insight it has given me, I do not wish to disclose at this time. Once I have completed what I’m doing, I want to get a copyright before I put it out there.

"How are you going to proceed? Perhaps I have not done much myself on that side. Though I have saved everything many times on CDs that cannot be modified. It would never stop someone from bringing something I said and say he or she thought it himself or herself. It happened with Lorentz. Another scientist thought the same thing before him. It happens all the time in science. Often they think things at the same time, because I suppose all the data was out there at that time, science reached that certain critical point that the logical following had to be that."

One other thing, special relativity explains "mom" almost catching up to the photon very well. In your reference frame, the light is not going much faster than her. In her frame, it’s going the speed of light faster than her. The difference is time dilation. You will see her time slow down by just the amount needed for this to be possible. For example, when you see the light separate from her by a meter, so much of your time will have passed by. But her time passage will be only a tiny fraction of this.

"Please explain to me how special relativity explains this very well. This concept of time dilation. I only find the observed situation, not an explanation. I know what happens (and I draw you a small little graphic below to understand it better, this time dilation concept). But I am not sure if that explains how it can happen considering the actual laws of Physics. I read much about it, perhaps not enough, but I have not found an explanation on how it is possible that your mom see something differently than you, that the speed of light is constant for everyone all the time."

Special relativity is a fairly thorough, self contained theory in its domain.

"Only because nobody stopped to consider its implications. I am sure it is quite central to how the Universe really is and works. But I understand what you mean."

Anyway, gotta go. I’ll wait for your next e-mail.

_______________________________________________________________

Dear Aquamarine Sea Water,

You would not imagine how much my time is counted at the moment. I am not sure if I told you, but I have one week left to render my thesis in Literature about Dangerous Liaisons at the University of London, Birbeck College. I have three final exams (100% each) coming in three weeks. I have an hundred e-mails unanswered, some very important. I have ten websites to build for Authors from the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain and I have 60 hours a week of working at producing my conferences on Efficient Network and Services Management. Ah yes, most important of all, I have to write this script about fake paintings sold at Christies in London and murder story in Laguna Beach California for this guy in Los Angeles who wants me to write him a scenario for a low budget movie.

Still, I dropped everything to answer you, and I mean by that, it is the most important thing of all. So keep going, read, give me your comments. I know it is long and that I repeat myself, but I realised it is the only way to each time bring that little idea that pushes it further. But you will admit, if you read my theory, that I am clearer here about what I think.

Believe me, the fact that my ideas are on the net means it is somehow copyrighted, it is in the public domain (though I wonder how I would prove to a court of law that my ideas were online since that certain date). Still, I realised that to reach anyone is very difficult. To get people to read your things enough to come back to you and share ideas, you need almost a miracle. I went from hiding my ideas to basically advertise them on the net. As well, an e-mail is receivable in a court of justice, it is proof enough. Don’t be worry for sharing your ideas, I am an honest chap. If I get inspiration somewhere, I give credit to the author. I like the idea of sharing, it makes you think that much more. And without your permission, I will not publish this on the net, but I am asking now, since you have not said much yet (not even your name), is it all right if I add this in a special page reachable from my theory? I will understand if you do not wish to. And in that case I will get rid of anything related to you and your ideas and will only keep the general part of my e-mail describing my ideas in more details.

Well, now about the point you are making. I know it would be better to not dismiss distance, but if you look at that, I am only replacing it by a similar concept that probably won’t change your ideas. What changes in all that is how to visualise movement. If biology is similar to technology, that a virtual world could be indistinguishable from reality, then we ought to draw a comparison between reality and virtuality that goes beyond the analogy.

Overall, there is no magic in the universe, it is pretty much the same thing everywhere, and getting rid of distance is possible as long as you can explain what is this illusion you see. Well, the only way your cosmic mother in her ship in space could see things differently than you is if light waves travel at different frequencies, and through distance less frames are reaching you, much like the number of frames a camera is broadcasting. (I can’t remember here what you said about time dilation since I am writing in the train bringing me to work in London, but I will come back to that later.) (Please look at my little graphic attached, sorry, that is the extent of my talent or the limitations of Microsoft Paint and my Mouse.)

The graphic explains how you see your mom depending on where you stand. But look, that sounds like a television set, images transmitted and received by our brain. The fact that a camera can receive these images, transform it into numbers and recreate it, shows this mechanism. I do not think our brain works much differently. Overall, not only images will get back to you distorted, or if you like different from what your mom going at almost the speed of light sees, but time will be different too. The fact that time can be different once your mom comes back on earth is highly interesting. Because it is not just a question of refraction or wavelengths making you see things that are not for others somewhere else and going at different speeds. The whole universe works weirdly. Not only time is faster or slower, but distance is also relative. It is longer or shorter depending on your frame of reference. And when your mom comes back on Earth, you might not see that she was smaller as clearly as when you see that you aged considerably compared to her. She will be the same size as you because you are right now in the same frame of reference and she is at the same scale as you. Though time is affected whilst your mom is away and that she would be ageless compared to you, distance getting shorter does not affect her the same way. She was smaller in a place where distance was shrunk but she came out of it unaffected, she comes back to your scale once back in your arms. All this has somehow been proven anyway, well let’s say observed: a ship going at almost the speed of light shrinks in the direction it is going. But the passengers do not realise it because their brains have become smaller too. All this is explained in the book HyperSpace of Michio Kaku and I think you should read it. Me, my sister and another friend interested in Quantum Physics all had a power surge of ideas after reading that. As well, after reading everything on the net I found another great scientist (Lorentz) to support my idea about distance and shrinking. Lorentz’s transformation equations, as I told you earlier, prove my point. A ship is not where we think it is because it has shrunk. None of the planets or stars you see are where you see them. The dynamic of the universe goes beyond anything we have identified. Everything is relative to each other, the only way everything can be the way we observe it is if the concepts of speed, time and distance are completely different from what we thought. They only work in a certain frame of reference of, for example, if you are here stationary on Earth. Get out of here, take some speed (and I do not mean the drug) and already everything is completely different (time, distance and speed) from the rest of the universe. Only light is constant and it is only constant because of our misunderstanding of the nature of the universe. It is constant because whatever you do or wherever you are, you mechanically calculate the speed of light by looking at the time it takes to cross a certain distance. Right there, there is something wrong. That is your clue.

It is wrong because time and distance are both relative, they change depending on where you are and at what speed you are going. But everything being relative and changing implies that by changing at the same rate (time and distance), you will always calculate the speed of light as "C". Since distance becomes smaller at high speed, it takes the same amount of time for light to cross that distance in this different time frame. From that, I can already say that, at least, if there is distance in the universe, it changes depending on where you are and at what speed you are travelling at. Everything shrinks with speed. Like in a black hole for example, also called Frozen Star. Well, I am now questioning that, I do not think it is frozen after all in there. I think that we see it frozen. I think as well that everything has just shrink from our point of view. If you were there, you would not see what we see from here. The gravitational field is big, all right, time goes slower and distance shrinks beyond visibility. This is the best proof I can bring to my shrinking theory. If you were going in there, you would see normally, you would move normally, you would get smaller only from the frame of reference of people here on Earth. It shows as well a very interesting vision I have about the universe. You do not expand, ever, you can only shrink from the point of view of someone else. And in that process, that someone else only shrinks from your point of view. The very small is connected to the very large in a way hard to express and visualise. But it is necessary if I am to say that distance does not really exist. The very large is the same size as the very small. All is interconnected and part of the other. When you go in the distance, you get smaller. You are becoming part of the atomic world. And you see me as part of your atomic world. This is where the example of the passengers in a train coming into a station at the speed of light can see the people on the platform and the platform very small, and once they stop they see it enlarged. And that the people on the platform see the train coming at the speed of light very small and suddenly very large once it stops. This is another paradox explained in the book of Michio Kaku and I speak about that on my page:

God, I understand that all this is very complex and hard to understand. I read too much lately and it seems that the connections I made go far beyond what everyone else has understood since they have not read all the same things as me and therefore cannot see all the connections I made. Do you understand? But it makes sense! Only someone deep into Quantum Physics and perhaps Superstrings might see it. So far only Michio Kaku, that I know, could maybe see it, but he seems to have stopped reading my stuff once I said there is no distance nor speed. He told me to prove it, to derive it from Newton’s equations. But I am not a physicist, I cannot do that. I went back to my math, still I do not know where to start.

Anyway, a black hole shows you what I mean. You shrink in there, but you are still in our universe. You are part of our atomic world even more. Therefore you are even farther into space. But let’s continue to prove the first thing of all, distance is relative. Oh, one more thing first. In the science fiction novel I am writing at the moment (still all on paper) I artificially create a small black hole (using Quantum Fluctuations) in order to shrink my ship and send people in the atomic world which is in fact space where you see stars. When the ship comes back, do you think it expands itself? No, it shrinks again to come back to Earth. You never need to expand (or enhanced as I always say in my theory), you only need to shrink back to where you want to go, because from your frame of reference, everything is smaller than you, whether it is stars in space or an electron around a nucleus. You see now the point I am trying to make? A microscope is way more powerful than a telescope, it gives you the opportunity to look much further into space. But space at that distance is going too fast for us. Therefore, communications with a ship over there, can be done only if you adjust the speed of the received signal. That is how my ship communicates with Earth. We pick the signal, we slow it a lot. The other way around, you could pick a certain signal from a ship on the planet Vega and just make it play faster. Any signal should be around us at all time. Anyway, it makes sense. If a ship goes on an electron, everything is much faster for that ship from our point of you. But is it really much slower on Earth from their point of you? No, it is the same. It is much faster on Earth from their point of you. That is why my ship can come back here on Earth at almost the same time it went. The first real application of my theory will have something to do with communications. A ship at the far end of the solar system or anywhere in the universe can communicate with us in real time. You just need to adjust your instruments to pick up that signal. The ship has just shrink, it should not take any time for that signal to reach us. It is here at this moment. Like this ship, it should not take any time for that ship to go anywhere in the universe, it should be able to reach its destination instantly. And sincerely, if Warp Speed and travelling through wormholes is possible, and it is according to science, then one will have to explain to me how it can work in the universe governed by the laws of physics we have. For proof that this is possible, I refer you to the book of Mr Lawrence M. Krauss who wrote the Physics of Star Trek and got the blessing of Stephen Hawking in the preface (though Krauss does not need it). I contacted Krauss, but without reading my things he told me to publish my theory in a science magazine. Thank you Mr Krauss, but I am not ready for that just yet. I need more insights, proof that I am not talking bullshit, or at least, I need no one to wipe out everything I say just by pointing to me a little equation… but so far so good, I have not met anything as destructive as that yet. (I contacted Stephen Hawking as well, but he has not answered me yet, he probably got scared once he understood I could spin his wheelchair off instantly around the universe and that he was wrong about black holes that Ain’t so Frozen after all).

Well, of what I said earlier about the relativity of distance, though it is not as evident at the speed our ships and satellites are going at the moment, you see that it was easy for me to push it a little bit further and establish that there is no distance in the universe. It is logical. If distance is relative and we shrink even just a little bit when we go into space, then wherever you go, you only shrink more and more and really you are not moving. And it is not just a perception, because when your mom comes back, she has not aged compared to you. There is only the illusion of distance. But remember that I replaced it with a similar concept, the rate at which you shrink, therefore Newton does not crumble under your feet. You replace distance by the degree of shrinking. As long as we replace distance with another quite similar concept but somehow more accurate it is fine, I am not completely saying that Newton, Einstein and Hawking were completely wrong… what they said still works. Once everybody sees it the way I see it, everybody will wonder why nobody saw it earlier despite all the paradoxes they identified. It is hard to visualise something for the first time, and I am afraid that I must still be very obscure, not transmitting exactly what I see. Distance is being replaced with the degree of shrinking you are inflicting on yourself (you masochist). No, seriously I mean that when you propel an object in space, that object is in fact shrinking, it is in another frame of reference where time and distance are different, all due to speed. Though you cannot see it so close to Earth and at small speed, like the time difference is not too big when someone goes around the Earth in a jet.

So depending on the speed the ship is going at, distance shrinks and time goes slower. Therefore the ship is not really crossing a distance and does not really acquire speed either. Or if you prefer, if it does, the result is not finding the ship far in the distance, but finding it shrunk.

If you can help me explain these, I am ready to reconsider my ideas:

1. Why is it that the speed of light is always constant wherever you are and whatever your speed.

2. Why is time relative, how can we explain it.

3. Why does a ship shrinks (or appear to be) whilst going at high speed.

4. Why the passengers in a train coming into a station at the speed of light see the platform measuring one centimetre, then once it stops they see the platform measuring 10 meters. And why are the people on the platform, though immobile, see that speeding train measuring one centimetre, then 10 meters once stopped?

5. Why a particle in quantum physics can be at many places at the same time, in fact, why is this particle exists "in the sum" of all its possible locations?

6. How to apply this to the very large? Because nature repeats itself in the very large and in the very small, therefore the same laws must apply.

Now you really got me hooked about your own theories and slight modifications you made after reading the problems I identified. I love that idea and you are not the first one to come back to me with this. It means that I must be asking the right questions, if at least I fail to explain them. And reaching an explanation is my only goal, finding the truth about the Universe. I don’t care about credits (well, let’s say it is not my priority).

Your first e-mail certainly did not prepare me for all this, you sounded like you had only read the first paragraph of my theory and I did not know you knew more about Quantum Physics (how much do you know about Superstrings?). Please continue to bring your questions, it helps me to be more coherent with my ideas. Right minds working together might get somewhere. Send yourself everything through the post and let’s share our ideas. Don’t wait too long because others will find it before us or we will have already moved to something else.

Vôtre,

Roland Michel Tremblay

Le Marginal Littérature: http://www.themarginal.com

The Shrinking Theory of the Universe: http://www.themarginal.com/relativity.htm

It seems to me that you have to clearly define what you mean by
shrinking and enhancing (expanding?) First, you have to be able to reproduce
most of Newton's theory. I don't quite see how this is possible with shrinking
and enhancing. Second, you have to be able to smoothly go from
Newton's theory to Einstein's theory. In particular, you have to reproduce the
standard Lorentz transformation. I don't quite
see how that is possible.
In other words, in order to convince a scientist, you must be able to
reproduce Newton, Einstein, and then we can discuss what lies beyond,
i.e. the quantum theory and the unified field theory.
Michio Kaku

London, 31st August 1998

Dear Mr Kaku,

I have been reading the whole history of science and equations and theories
possible on the Internet for the last three days. Now I am going back to
work tomorrow. So it might take me a while to elaborate on my ideas. But it
is now much more clearer on my website, all separated in parts and subparts
with a table of content. I have added things since you read it and prepared
myself to attack Newton, Einstein and Lorentz.

Of everything I read so far, I can already say that those scientists have
been able to draw equations from what they thought they saw and really, it
is just as good as if they really knew what it was (if one considers my
theory). Therefore I am not here to prove anyone wrong, perhaps just explain
better the picture of the universe for which I believe their equations still
works.

Lorentz transformations, at the very least, confirm that we do shrink! And
perhaps it is time to consider that the universe shrinks much more than we
thought, but only from one's perspective. Meaning that the Higher dimensions
are as big as the three spatial others. Meaning that the very small is
actually as big as the very large, and that if you go for a drive in space
eventually you will become part of the very small (I explain this better in
the section called "The very large is the very small and vice versa" in part
1 and "Why is it that if a train was going at the speed of light and enter a
station the passengers see the people on the platform shrunk and that those
people see the passengers shrunk as well?" in part 5.

I will see what I can write about Newton, Einstein and Lorentz probably this
week or next week-end. I doubt I will be able to derive anything from
Newton's Laws, my maths courses are so far away now. I will probably only be
able to say what I think from the description of his laws and perhaps
elaborate on the equations, see if there is anything in there.

You ask me to describe better what I mean by Shrinking and Enhancing, and
you ask if I mean Expanding. Yes, I believe that by enhancing, I mean
expanding. I am sorry, language barrier (I did not speak English two years
ago). I will do a special paragraph to explain exactly what I mean. It is
hard, since there is the actual fact that we shrink, and the perception that
a ship is somewhere else than where it really is according to Lorentz
transformation. Perhaps this will help me to explain why a ship can look
frozen in the very large at high speed whilst actually being part of the
very small and not frozen at all. (Then if I could explain that in the very
small, the ship should really have time running faster than us, instead of
being frozen with time stopped from our perspective...)

Please, if you have any more guidance or details to add I will welcome it
(unless you really think that there is no hope for my theory, and I will
understand if you tell me that as well). I know you certainly have no time
with the University, the Radio, the Internet, your writings and research,
etc. Incredible that we can still find the time to accomplish something.
Really I believe we should find a way through General Relativity to stop
time sometimes.

Is it ok if I put our correspondence on the Internet after my theory? It is
now composing the part 6 of my essay, but I do not put it on my website by
respect. So you tell me if there is any problems. I think that the comments
you give me are very relevant and might help someone else to get somewhere
with this. But I can always manage to say it without putting the
correspondence. That is not a problem either.

Thank you very much for your support, I would have never expected that from
anyone, and certainly not from a knowledgeable person like you. Really you
are the only one I know who could help me. (Who would have thought that
after sending you my first e-mail I would have jumped into a 35 pages new
theory of the universe?)

Regards,

Roland Michel Tremblay

-----Original Message-----
From: MKaku@aol.com <MKaku@aol.com>
To: rm@themarginal.com <rm@themarginal.com>
Date: 31 August 1998 03:37
Subject: Re: Bonjour!

>Before trying to explain Einstein, you should first be sure that
>your shrinking theory can explain Newton.
>That's an easier problem, and should indicate if you are on the right
>track. See if you can derive Newton's 3 laws.
>Michio Kaku
>

Hi, please read below... (since I am explaining my theory a little bit
better here, I will have to put this entire e-mail on my website. Please
tell me if you do not wish to see your answer, name and e-mail address
there. I can easily get these out. If you do not mention it again, I will
assume it is fine).

> From: dr_stuck@tech-center.com[SMTP:dr_stuck@tech-center.com]
> Sent: 07 September 1998 17:08
> To: rm@themarginal.com
> Subject: The Shrinking Theory
>
> Dear Roland
>
> Firstly I agree with the caption in small type at the start of your
> website,
>
Me too, how funny!

> I am of the traditional school,

Do you mean Aristotle? Please do not tell my University of my writings, they
might call the Vatican and they might burn me for heresy!

> who believes in both motion and
> therefore kinetic energy.

So you are a believer? Me too. I just thought I could bring into the light
(a special kind of light) something new to celebrate the new millenium.
Unfortunately, I took myself a little bit too seriously since I have good
reason to believe I might get somewhere with my Shrinking Theory. I have
started to read many books (even a physic book for High School I believe)
and one of these books, Calculus, seems very interesting in my theory of the
infinities which are not infinities. I will develop that further on my
website when I get the time (which I do not have) and already it is much
more than what I have sent you. It is now separated in parts and subtitles:
http://www.themarginal.com/relativity.htm

> Without this energy type, Newton's theory's
> falls apart i.e. energy can neither be created or destroyed mearly
> changed in the form of kinetic energy.

About motion, I am all prepared to try to make Newton fit in my theory. It
will take me a while though, I have 4000 years of Science to grasp before. I
would like to tell you about Tycho, the Danish nobleman who studied the
motion of planets and stars and made it possible to establish the calendar
we are using today, calculating everything thinking the Earth was the centre
of the universe. (p.42, Achilles in the Quantum Universe, The Definitive History of

Infinity, Richard Morris) It made no difference if he calculated it thinking that the
Earth was the centre of the universe or thinking that the Sun was in fact
the centre of the universe (as we know better now). I mean the centre of our
Solar system. What I want to say, is that sometimes we are very mistaken,
still, through observation, we get an accurate way of describing movements.
You see, I am not saying that motion does not exist, I say that it should
take another definition. Still, the observations of Newton are correct, just
like the ones of Tycho. The work you do on a ball, which brings a kinetic
force and an acceleration, does not come in contradiction with my theory.
Instead, motion is replaced by the word shrinking/expanding and acceleration
the rate at which things shrink or expand. In there, I see no reason to
forget about forces or energy or kinetic energy.

> Could you therefore explain how your theory accounts for the
> transformation of energy without recognising kinetic energy?


Perhaps my little explanation here is not convincing. But give me another
thousand years and I am sure I will explain it better. In the meantime,
think about it, it is not that crazy. (Well it is, still, it might be
possible). You see, an object that accelerates do shrink, Lorentz's
transformation equations are there to demonstrate where is actually the
object and what is the rate of time at which the object function to compare
with where we think the object is and the rate of time here on earth. Then
again, the speed of light is constant whatever if we go at almost the speed
of light. Truly, I have taken time as a real dimension, almost as temporal
as spatial. See my website for more.

Anyway, take an uncivilased society who did not yet grasp the concepts of
distance and speed. Really, they might think that objects shrink or expand
in front of their eyes. Meaning, all that might just be the same thing, you
see. It does not really matter if you say that there is a distance and a
speed or say that there is no distance and that there is a rate of shrinking
or expanding. The truth is that the later one describes the universe better,
I think (well, I am still trying to prove that). Remark that I can even
eliminate the infinities with that theory. When a ship leaves the earth and
goes to the sun, it shrinks from our point of view and we shrink from the
point of view of the ship. Eventually the ship is like the infinite small,
too small to be observed through a telescope, part of the very small. The
irony is that ship looks at us like if we are the infinite small. Still, if
the ship goes very fast, it shrinks from the point of its direction. Same
thing with the universe and the stars, going so fast that the edge shrinked,
becoming the infinite small. But really, it is not small, only from our
point of view. Something only shrinks from the point of view of someone
else.

I am still developing my ideas. I suggest that for a second you consider the
hypothesis and try to prove it. You could start by deriving Newton's
equations (and tell me where to start) and perhaps you could see that it
might be possible. Who knows, there is strange observations out there that
suggest it might be an explanation.
>
> Yours Sincerely
>
> Dr Siegfried Stück
> Institute of Atomic Physics, Geneva
>
> PS Which brand of glue would you recommend for the car hood and computer screen experiments?
>
In Canada we call it crazy-glue, good enough to explain the electromagnetic fields of Maxwell!!! (I will get to that theory next...)

Regards, Roland Michel Tremblay

Something interesting that I read on page 213-214 of Hyperspace: "300,000 years (after the Big Bang) Electrons begin to condense around nuclei. Atoms begin to form. Because light is no longer scattered or absorbed as much, the universe becomes transparent to light. Outer space becomes black." This means that at one point and for at least 300,000 years, there was no atomic structures in the universe, meaning that the very large and the very small at that time did not exist.

[...]

It defies the logic of my theory if everybody sees the other shrinking. One has stopped and is shrunk. The other goes very fast and is shrunk as well. According to my theory, only the ones who go fast should shrink, but apparently, if you go fast, what is stopped shrink as well. Perspective again. It seems that whatever you do, if something is at a different rate than you, you see it shrunk, or distorted instead perhaps. In that case, if this effect of shrinking is just a distortion of space and time, my theory is wrong. Nothing really shrinks or enhances. You perceive it as that because when you go faster, space and time get distorted.

Still, it is interesting to note that the very small could still appear shrink only because of a distortion of space/time. Clearly, the train and the people on the platform are not shrunk, they just appear to be. Then the atomic structures could just appear to be shrunk. And my theory states just that. Nothing really shrinks or enhances, things just appeared to be shrunk or enhanced.

Then again, time changes, that is a fact. Therefore, perhaps we do shrink for real. Otherwise, why will time change? And there is no two ways about it, a watch really goes slower or faster, it is not just an adjustment we do when we get out of a plane from New York to London. Somehow, even a digital clock goes faster or slower. The quartz inside might be responsible. It ticks slower or faster for whatever reason, but still we can see a ship frozen in time whilst it goes at almost the speed of light. We see it stopped and the quartz tick slower. Could that be proof enough that the watch really shrunk? I mean, does time change because of the process of shrinking? Does the process of shrinking happens or appear so because space-time is distorted? The fact that time change has no influence or prove anything. Since time is link to space, if the train appears shrunk, even if time change, it does not mean it is really shrunk.

At that point I would be ready to say that things do not really shrink, but appear to shrink and enhance. I never made that distinction before. But it makes sense. About the ship going from the earth to the sun, the ship shrinks whilst going in space. Earth shrinks for the ship as well, like the story about the passengers and the people on the platform. The earth has stopped like the people waiting, the ship is going fast, both see each other shrinking. But the earth is certainly not shrinking if we follow our previous logic. Therefore, nothing really shrinks or enhances, they only appear to shrink and enhance. In that case there is perhaps a distance and a speed and I was just stating the obvious with my shrinking theory: when something goes in the distance, it appears to shrink. How sad, but then again, I have just wasted two weeks of my life, and perhaps wasted the time of others.

The show is over. Come back next year for another biggest blunder of my life! But do not forget this next few lines, what brought me to my crazy ideas:

Basically, it is all very nice for Einstein to have identified that the speed of light is always a constant called "c" but I believe that if we could see further and think a little bit more, we could draw a new theory explaining why. Or perhaps finding an explication and from it draw a new theory.

Wait a minute! Things really shrink according to Michio Kaku, because is analogy about the passengers in the car, he says that even their brains have become smaller too, that is why they do not perceive the change in the rate of time. So we shrink for real! We do not just appear to shrink. In that case, my whole theory might still stand. (Until someone else bring me another big flaw I suppose, but then again, it is part of the fun.)

Now, I still have to answer my embarrassing questions, I cannot just wipe them out of existence under the bed. What was the question again?

According to Michio Kaku in Hyperspace,p.341, Note 3 of Chapter 4: "In this situation we have two people, each correctly thinking that the other has been compressed. This is not a true contradiction because it takes time in which to perform a measurement, and time as well as space has been distorted. In particular, events that appear simultaneous in one frame are not simultaneous when viewed in another frame. […] The essence of this "paradox," and many others that appear in relativity theory, is that the measuring process takes time, and that both space and time become distorted in different ways in different frames.

Thank you Mr Kaku. This explanation will serve me to explain why the people in the very small can see themselves as being in the very large and see us as being in the very small and that both us and them see the other's time running much faster whilst a ship going from the very large to the very small and back would have a running time much slower than ours.

Well, I said that an atom was like a little solar system, but is really a solar system in our very large universe (I must have drink a lot that night). It is because it goes fast that suddenly it appears small to us. Therefore, if we stop it, it should become big. The only thing is that if it is a real solar system in our very large space, the fact that we stop it will not make it bigger, it is already big somewhere else in the universe, very far from us in the distance (to use our old concepts). In that case it does not just appear shrunk to our eyes, it has shrunk for real. And in that case, it has not necessarily shrink because it was going very fast, since stopping it does not make it larger. It was just going very fast because it was shrunk, and going fast only from our point of view. If we were on a planet of this little solar system, we would not see it go very fast. In that case, it is not because it is going fast that the very small is seen as such. It has just shrunk through energy or whatever other reasons and seems to us to go very fast to compare with where we are.

That is the best question asked so far, and obviously the only question that nobody will dare to answer. I might get to it one day. You have been warned!

Dear Mr Kaku,

I have read your book Hyperspace, I read everything about you on this website: http://www.dorsai.org/~mkaku/ Many times you mentioned that perhaps a reader will help discovered the theory of everything. There I was, as a child, asking questions that Einstein was asking himself, making it possible for him to bring to life his theories. Myself, without knowing anything about Einstein, I was wondering about if we could stop time by moving at the speed of light, or making time going faster by moving in the opposite direction as light coming towards us. I myself wondered about an elevator falling down and getting some ideas out of it that unfortunately I forgot now (something to do with cancelling the gravitational force of the earth, leading to F=ma). When I took a plane at the age of 14, I realised that a boat was taking a long time to reach a point. So far away from the above, time seems to stop, or going very slow. I myself thought of the same things that made it possible for Einstein to unravel principles and bring to life theories. I read many books on science, including the Physics of Star Trek and all the books from Stephen Hawking, and I am about to read all your books. Many things I read about Einstein crossed my mind and I was able to draw myself the same ideas and conclusions, astonishingly. I was desperate that someone thought of it before me. Only by reading science books, I came to realise that I was wasting my time, spending time in thinking about stuff already solved. I then started to think that I might be able myself to contribute to the actual problems of science and perhaps the discovery of a theory of everything. I read many cosmologists books, the Cosmogony of the Rose-Croix (Rosicrucians) (by Max Heindel) and many others.

I have some kind of a global understanding of the universe of my own and sometimes when I read problems in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, I see beyond the formulas. I was so dumb in college because they never explained to us what was the logic of all these formulas, where was it coming from, why we were doing those calculations. They presented to us the table of the elements like an accomplished fact, finite, to learn by heart. What was interesting to me was the source, which they ignored completely. Therefore my studies were futile, I would have never really learned anything there, except doing calculations of Integrals by heart without understanding the purpose of it. But I can tell you that whilst I was struggling in Physics to try to get to the answers, I was so lost that I was able to reach the answers by incorporating just about anything that my teacher thought was totally not appropriate, but I was following a logic of my own that was obviously lacking around me. Therefore I think (perhaps wrongly) that I was able to solve big problems by using different ways that already existed. And if then I had the whole principles at the back of these problems in my head, I could have understood what were the ways I used to reach those right answers.

I think that your books are very fascinating, but I need to go beyond the historical knowledge of the theories. I need the tools that will help me looking at the whole picture and give me the chance to really work on the problems and perhaps help to find solutions. Basically I need some guidance.

We have to work on a unified field theory, fine. We need to unify the theory of relativity of Einstein with the quantum mechanics theory. It always seemed clear to me that the laws of the cosmos had to be the same of the laws of the microcosm. If it is only a question of speed, perhaps we just have to change the perspective of the observer. I lack the information, the actual theories and formulas, the basics to be able to work on it after thinking about it. As well, I think that often physicists get lost in calculations and forget to look at the whole picture. Einstein had thought of everything before starting to do any calculations. Simple ideas brought him to think that the universe was actually like this, and not like that, then he went to his calculation board.

Perhaps the whole scientific body needs some philosophers to look at details or the whole picture. Our universe is made up of atomic structures, made up of atomic structures, made up of atomic structures. For each particles, we can go beyond it and discover other particles components of them. Surely they all obeyed the same principles, either in the cosmos or the microcosm. I am passionate by it, even if I left science a long time ago and that I am now a writer touching the subject of the universe and multiverse as much as I can think of it or read about it. You can see my work on my website, but it is mostly in French and you would not find anything of interest to you: http://www.themarginal.com

Considering that I have no money and can buy only a few books, and that I have no time whatsoever because I am doing my master in French Literature at Birkbeck College at the University of London whilst producing conferences in Telecommunications full time and beyond, can you give me some insight, readings, places on the Internet perhaps, to start myself juggling with the new ideas that could uncover the theory of everything?

Everything I know about the Superstring theory comes from some articles I read, some stuff you wrote and some Star Trek books that were talking about it. Now I need more, I need to sit down with the whole thing in front of me, read everything and start to think seriously about it. I do not have much motivation because of the kind of life (which can be called hell most of times) I am living. Therefore I am asking for the minimum to be able to start thinking, which will probably bring me to more serious studies on my own.

Yes, I am probably just one more thinking brain that thinks that can make a difference, but somehow I always thought I could make a difference and many times proved it to myself by reaching the same conclusions of many Nobel Prize winners without knowing anything about them and their theories, and even, without having done any calculations or readings.

If you could read my books, you could see that I always question everything, always think from the start that everything is wrong, that we are always on the wrong track. I see analogies perfectly, it tells me that there is always another way to see through things, even when we have proven theories which bring answers. Please help me to start working on the actual problems, who knows, I might bring something to it, for being totally out of it. I think that we are looking at the whole picture totally in the wrong way. Can you help me getting somewhere?

Roland Michel Tremblay

Since I don't how much math you know, I suggest you try reading my book, Quantum Field Theory: A Modern Introduction (for 1st year beginning grad students) to see if you can handle some of the math.

Michio Kaku

If that's too hard, try some books on ordinary quantum mechanics, and also general relativity (e.g. see Steve Weinberg's book).

Michio Kaku

>-----Original Message-----
>From: MKaku@aol.com <MKaku@aol.com>
>To: rm@themarginal.com <rm@themarginal.com>
>Date: 30 August 1998 05:12
>Subject: Re: Bonjour!
>
>
>>Thanks for your e-mail.
>>I finally read your theory.
>>It seems to me that you have to clearly define what you mean by
>>shrinking and enhancing (expanding?) First, you have to be able to
>reproduce
>>most of Newton's theory. I don't quite see how this is possible with
>shrinking
>>and enchancing. Second, you have to be able to smoothly go from
>>Newton's theory to Einstein's theory. In particular, you have to reproduce
>the
>>standard Lorentz transformation. I don't quite
>>see how that is possible.
>>In other words, in order to convince a scientist, you must be able to
>>reproduce Newton, Einstein, and then we can discuss what lies beyond,
>>i.e. the quantum theory and the unified field theory.
>>Michio Kaku
>>
>

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Judy Franz <franz@aps.org>
>To: rm@themarginal.com <rm@themarginal.com>
>Date: 30 August 1998 21:03
>Subject: Re: The Shrinking Theory
>
>
>>Dear Mr. Tremblay,
>>
>>If you would like your work judged by the scietific community then you
>>should submit it for publication in a refereed journal. Instructions for
>>how to submit articles for American Physical Society journals are given on
>>the web at the URL: publish.aps.org/ESUB/.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>Judy Franz
>>APS Executive Officer
>>
>

On the website of Kaku http://www.wbaifree.org/explorations/:

Where are these higher dimensions?

These higher dimensions are all around us. Imagine carp swimming in shallow pond, just below the lily pads. They spend their entire lives swimming in 2 dimensions, not realizing that just above their universe lies the 3rd dimension. Every point in their two dimensional universe is in contact with the 3rd dimension, yet they cannot conceive of the direction called "up" or "down".

Similarly, many scientists believe that we live in 10 dimensions. The other 6 dimensions are invisible to us, just like the 3rd dimension was invisible to the fish. Scientists believe that at the beginning of time, the universe was 10 dimensional, but it was unstable. The universe (like a soap bubble) split in half, splitting into a 6 and a 4 dimensional bubble. The 6 dimensional universe collapsed, thereby inflating the 4 dimensional bubble, which became the big bang. Thus, our universe is expanding as at the expense of the 6 dimensional universe, which collapsed. Therefore, the 6 dimensional universe, although it is all around us, is too small for us to enter.