The main reason there are so many
people trying to understand the Universe and offering their own perspectives is
that there is no clear and simple explanation for why things are the way they
are. The current paradigm of physics is fraught with illogic and
inconsistencies that would not be tolerated in any other avenue of study in the
realm of university curriculums—if you do not count medicine, which is still in
the trial and error phase. I apologize in advance for what I am about to say
next, but it has to be said. The idea that there is anything that is not
understandable in a real and everyday context is absurd. Physicists have let
themselves become inured to ideas that have no basis in reality, abstract ideas
they have convinced themselves are true. They are mistaken.
There are many people outside the
main physics community that are skeptical of this behavior and think there must
be another answer. I have read many papers published on the internet at many
different types of sites that claim to have a new view of the Universe. All of
them have the same thing in common, they do not have a new view of the
Universe. How can I know this? Because I am the only one who truly does. At
least that is what I have seen so far. If someone else does then I have not had
the privilege of seeing it in writing. Mostly what I have read involves novel
ways to look at some aspect of reality and then try to extrapolate it to other
areas. Frequently this results in absurdities or inconsistencies that make it
hard to understand why the author does not see this, but they never seem to
even if you point it out to them. And even more often the idea is something
that cannot be tested or verified, which makes it completely worthless.
You might be thinking that I sound crazy
for saying such things, and there is a chance you could be right, but there many
reasons to believe that you are wrong. The main reason is that I can explain
the Universe in a physical way that leaves almost no doubt as to how everything
is constructed. No one has even come close to doing that before. Although the
explanations involve a new concept (ultrawaves), it is not an unreasonable proposal.
Why? Because Einstein indirectly proposed it with his E=mc2 equation. He did not know it at the time, but his
view was an alternative way of explaining why mass energy conversion fits a
power curve. Unbeknownst to him, there are other aspects of matter that also
fit the power curve scheme. This cannot be a coincidence.
An ultrawave has a velocity that is
so close to the square of the speed of light that it is indistinguishable by
human measurement abilities. Some of you more astute math wizards are scoffing
at the above sentence saying that changing the units of c makes c2
vary, so let me explain what I mean. I have determined that the value of the
ultrawave velocity, which I call C*,
has the value 8.9359E+16 meters per second to within ±0.00005E+16. The speed of
light is 299792458 meters per second. The square of that number is 8.98755E+16.
At this scale the value is off by barely over half a percent. If you used units
that put the value of c equal to 1
then 12 still equals 1. This means that it is off by 100 percent. If
instead you were to use units that put the value of c equal to 298929757.6354686
then the ultrawave velocity would be exactly equal to c2.
You may be thinking that this seems
somewhat coincidental that the SI units put the value of C* so close to c2
and you are right. I thought at first that there was something wrong with my
assumption, but then after many hours of looking at how to create matter
particles, I realized that human beings set the SI values based on the most
convenient way to measure things. In effect, physicists were able to get close
to the correct units because that was what worked best. The coincidence
disappears when you look at it that way and the reason that C* is close to a power of c is understandable.
The next thing that is different
about ultrawave theory from every other theory is the use of two-dimensional
(2D) entities. It is difficult for most people to understand how such objects
would work. I know it remains difficult for me, but eventually you get used to
the idea. It only makes sense that our 3D universe be made out of 2D
components. The use of 2D entities is necessary to get around the fact that we
do not see anything traveling faster than the speed of light. If the velocity
of ultrawaves is 8.9359E16m/s then they must not be in a form that is measurable.
Being 2D allows prevents them from being measured or even detected directly.
Because ultrawaves mix with 2D light speed entities, the combined entities then
show only light speed velocity.
You would not know it by looking around you,
but everything in the Universe is traveling at light speed.
Now I know you are scratching your
head and saying this guy is nuts!
Okay, maybe you aren’t scratching your head. Seriously though, if you take an
object traveling at the ultrawave velocity and rotate it around an object
traveling at light speed, you end up with subatomic particles. How do I know
that? Simply by looking at the values of the three matter particles, the
electron, the proton, and the neutron. By calculating them with equations that
someone else devised, and which work in the everyday engineering world, these
three particles can be treated as simple spinning tops. Well, not completely
simple, they do have multiple rotation components that make their microscopic
behaviors a little bit unusual compared to the everyday objects we deal with our
macroscopic existence. Still, they are relatively simple beasts. So when I said
that all matter is traveling at the speed of light, what I meant was that the
particles making up everything are essentially little spinning tops rotating at
the speed of light.
Because matter and energy cannot be
created or destroyed, at least by us mere humans, what happens is that matter
changes how it is rotating when it gets jostled around too much. What we know as
the electromagnetic spectrum, by seeing light, and by feeling radiant heat,
both small portions of the whole, is really only electrons being jostled to the
point that they are no longer able to spin in place. Their electrostatic and
magnetic components swing by each other and end up going in a straight line
rather than a circle. Don’t ask me to explain exactly how this works, because
they are in a state that I cannot fully grasp, let alone explain. What I am
sure of is that matter and energy are made of the exact same things. The
individual components, which are almost always electrons as far as the everyday
world is concerned, just behave differently depending on what is happening
By using the power curve
relationships that apply to particles, it was easy to discover that all spin
1/2 atoms are equivalent in construction to the three major spin 1/2 particles,
the electron, the proton and the neutron. Since these atomic nuclei are now
shown as being single particles, it makes sense that the construction of higher
spin value atoms is not as was believed and they are actually made of much
larger components than the protons and neutrons that are currently believed as
constituting their makeup. This means that the entire elemental table is wrong
about how the elements are constructed. It also means that some isotopes are
actually new elements and the table is incomplete.
The best thing about using
ultrawaves to create the Universe is the fact that gravity and relativity can
be explained in a physical manner. This is something Einstein spent the
remainder of his life trying to accomplish. Without a correct view of the
quantum, and not knowing that his view of the mass-energy relationship was
flawed, he was doomed to fail. You might be thinking that if he was wrong about
that then maybe he was wrong about relativity. No, he was right about that,
because relativity is completely compatible with ultrawave and light-speed
created matter and its subsequent behavior when combined in large quantities
under the contraction of space-time, which is what we refer to as gravity. Because
both time and gravity are byproducts of matter creation, time’s rate or
duration or gravity’s strength is fully dependent on the quantity of matter
present and any relative velocity between the matter components. Unfortunately,
the current equations that describe these behaviors are fairly complex, and no
simpler alternatives have yet been devised. When those equations are finally
developed, we will likely find that the extremes that Einstein’s equations
predict are not quite as drastic as they indicate.
In conclusion, for an alternative
theory to the Standard Model of physics to be viable it must include all
aspects of quantum and classical behaviors, calculate all behaviors perfectly, is
testable, and is logically consistent. I am not aware of any other theory
besides ultrawave theory that lives up to these standards, and that includes
the Standard Model. All others are either, too specific and just replace one
aspect of the Standard Model, or they are so ethereal that there is nothing
that suggests they are any better than fairy tales. Most are untestable. Since
ultrawave theory can do all this, there can be no excuse by the physics
community for not designing an experiment that will show whether or not the
theory has merit. It is just too comprehensive in its scope to ignore.
[What follows below is the ususal website text.]
First. let me say that I will not be asking for donations, nor will I try to sell you anything. I firmly believe that Ultrawave Theory represents the true nature of reality, and that everyone should have the opportunity to learn about it for free. I believe that I will be rewarded in other ways for all of the hard work that went into developing this theory. Its undeniable simplicity and power are just too important to keep restricted in any way.
The problem with knowledge is that it colors one's thinking, whether or not that knowledge is right or wrong. What professional and amateur physicists don't realize is that the Standard Model is wrong about several key items, which skew the perspectives of those who believe in it. The problem is not that the answers it obtains are wrong, but rather it is the explanations for those answers that are wrong. Because the explanations are wrong, the units that are used are sometimes wrong. After I have proven that things aren't what we have been told they are, you might be able to look at an alternative objectively.
To circumvent the escape route of disbelief before examination, this website is dedicated to showing material that is contrary to the Standard Model's explanations of how our universe operates without giving an alternative reason up front. No mention of what ultrawave theory is based upon will need to be given until after you have examined the last four pages on this website. Of course, if you are truly open to new ideas then by all means go ahead and look at the theory.
To prove the point of how your knowledge base has affected you, when reading the above paragraphs, many of you have already made up your mind that this must be a bunch of hooey (to put it mildly). You don't have a reason to think that, as no information has yet been imparted to you, it is just a natural reaction to someone telling you that there is a problem with your belief system. Most people don't actively seek out and evaluate anything that disagrees with their current beliefs. I assure you that I would never have believed this either if I had not discovered it for myself. All I did was ask a couple of questions that shouldn't have been asked, and when I solved the equations that were required by these "silly" questions the answers all came out right. From the answers to these questions about the nature of matter and energy, an entirely new view of the Universe emerged, one that made much more sense than what I had previously believed (what I had learned through the normal physics channels). If you can put your prejudices behind you and examine ultrawave theory, I believe that you will begin to understand what it is that I discovered. Even though I developed this theory after learning that the questions did have realistic answers, I still don't understand all of the implications of the equations. Some aspects of the theory I can only speculate about, so I hope that my proposals are close to reality.
Several pages of proof that support the findings that are contrary to the Standard Model (SM) are available on the left. They are things that I knew must be true if what I discovered about the basic structure of the Universe was correct. The first page is titled H2O (water and ice)—the other three pages of evidence appear below it. It was a real eye-opener to find such a simple example of how quantum theory (QT) is wrong about the construction of matter using something as simple as water and ice. This is the most compelling argument that I have found for not believing the SM explanations for the quantum. Yes, the SM is not just incomplete, it is actually wrong about some things. Not with its numerical answers, but with its explanations. Unfortunately for the SM, these explanations can have far reaching consequences if they are not acknowledged.
At present, there are four examples that I have provided information about, but I expect there are many more. The first two proof pages contain findings worthy of front-page science news, as they are so contrary to what we have been taught that even those who are not interested in science might take note. The other two pages will show that there are equally believable explanations besides those of the SM for some aspects of the physical measurements of atomic matter.
Currently, I am doing a lot of writing, especially sci-fi novels. My work on atoms and compounds has taken a backseat, and I do not know when I might get back to it. I am certain that atoms are ball-bearing-like entities that change size based on molecular combinations. The most striking evidence for this is the measurement discrepancy for the proton charge radius. Experimenters consistently find different values for all of the proton radii (charge, magnetic, etc.) when using different versions of protons. They expect that regular hydrogen will be the same as muonic hydrogen, or even the same as deuterium. This is never going to be the case. Until it is accepted that particles and atoms change size based on what other constituents they are combined with, no progress will be made. Eventually, the consistency in the differences will have to be accepted, and theories that explain it examined with less skepticism if they contradict the SM.
I am always looking for collaborators, so if you want to go where no one is currently looking and be the first to show indisputable evidence for how to physically create atoms and compounds then drop me a line. It is always good to have more than one source of information, since solid state behavior is sometimes harder to measure than we would like. Anyone with a good source of consistent measurement data will be my new best friend.
Caution, once you have read the evidence contained on this website, you will find it hard to deny that there may be a better explanation of the Universe than that of quantum theory, as well as other aspects of the SM that are hard to accept. These include the spooky action at a distance of quantum entanglement that Einstein disliked. Einstein knew that there was a problem with the accepted view of the nature of the quantum, he just didn't have all of the information necessary to prove where things had gone wrong. Ultrawave theory provides that proof by presenting a completely physical picture of the quantum. It still amazes me how quickly someone will dismiss FTL even if it has a perfectly logical explanation, yet will readily accept quantum entanglement in its current form with no logical explanation. I would truly be grateful if someone could explain this to me.
On the "UT vs SM" page, you will find information about recent news articles that are presented somewhat differently using an ultrawave perspective. Most times I only give an alternative explanation, but occasionally I make predictions. One such prediction is that the Higgs boson does not exist. (See page for further information about the proposed Higgs particle.)
[A special note about this website: The currently used file editor does not support subscript and superscript and I am not comfortable with the codes to include them; therefore, an up carot (^) is used for superscript. The exception being "The Constants" page, which required using alphabetic rather than numeric characters in the subscripts and superscripts. This necessitated uploading several pages of text as picture files making them look correct, but they cannot be edited on this site, which is why it was not done that way everywhere. Also, please note that C* replaces Cc as the designator of the ultrawave velocity.]