GUTs, TOEs and UFOs

GUTs are Grand Unification Theories, TOEs are Theories of Everything and we all know what UFOs is. Finding a GUT or a TOE is the Holy Grail of today’s physics and it is generally referred to as “Unification.” Unification is all about unifying the electromagnetic forces of Quantum Theory with the gravitational force of Relativity Theory thus bringing the four known basic physical forces under a single theory. String Theory is the most commonly known of the unification theories. I want to look closer at String Theory in order to show just how unreal it really is. But first, it is necessary to cover a few basic need to know things about unification in general.

First there is nothing in any of the sciences, Quantum Theory or Relativity Theory that requires the unification of Quantum and Relativity theories and their associated forces into a single theory. The “need” to unify these things into a single theory is completely man made. This really does beg the question, if nature doesn’t require unification why does today’s science feel the necessity to do this? An even bigger question, if there is nothing in nature that says unification is necessary what make science think that unification is even possible and that there is only “one” theory for everything?

Another consideration, there are significant differences between Quantum and Relativity that common sense indicates cannot be overcome for a single theory for both. Relativity has to do with the very big things and long separation distances. Such as stars, galaxies and the universe. Quantum deals with the very smallest things and very, very short distances. Like quarks, atoms and molecules. Additionally, Relativity is deterministic while Quantum is probabilistic. In Relativity information leads to a real and specific determination while in Quantum things are imaginary and based on a probability. In other words, at the most basic level for Quantum and Relativity they simply do not match up, and there is in all likelihood no way to get them to come together.

Also, in order to find a single theory that unites Quantum and Relativity shouldn’t science completely understand both Quantum and Relativity? It seems that simple logic would dictate that science should pretty much need to know all there is to know about Quantum and Relativity before it might be possible to combine these things. You have to know all that you can about things that you combine together before you can really understand what they mean when they are combined. This is actually backwards from the position that science currently has. It is believed that by unifying Quantum and Relativity and coming up with a single all-inclusive theory for both this single theory can be used to answer questions about both that will allow science to understand things that are currently not understood. All of this begs a straightforward question, if Quantum and Relativity are not completely understood in the first place how can science know that the answers from a unified theory are right?

So now, let’s take a quick look at String Theory and see just how far science is away from being able to provide any simple answers about unification and any of the GUTs and TOEs that are supposed to go with it.

String Theory is the most common of all of the various unification theories. There has been a lot written about it and the amount of publicity it has received is such that pretty much everybody has heard of it. The most famous characteristic of String Theory is that this theory is based upon multiple dimensions. These are not dimensions like the three dimensions we are familiar with because of the world we live in. No, these dimensions are supposed to occur in the space below the smallest distance we know of. Let me give you a few more details about this; one form of String Theory has 10 dimensions, 9 space dimensions and one of time, another one has 11 dimensions, 9 of space, one of time and one of energy, and another one has 26 dimensions. And, in all of these different String Theories these extra dimensions are “compactified” down into a space that has a distance so small we can never ever see it or work within it. This really does beg the questions can science really understand a distance this small? If we cannot ever see this distance or work within it, how can we know what is really happening in String Theory? The name of this distance is the “Planck Length.”

Are we really supposed to accept something such as this that can never be proven, or disproven? Oh, and it gets better; String Theory actually has an infinite number of possible dimensions. That is, pick a number, any number and that number of dimensions can exist in String Theory. The current number of String Theory dimensions has been “discovered” because they do not blow up mathematically. In other words, out of an infinite number of possible dimensions, science will only look at a couple because they work. Let’s go one step further, given that there are an infinite number of possible dimensions how does science know that in theory 500, 5000 or even more dimensions are not possible? If 10, 11 or 26 dimensions are acceptable who is to decide that this is where we stop? And, an infinite number of possible dimensions also means that there are also an infinite number of impossible dimensions.

A last bit to think about. In order to overcome the scale difference between Relativity (really large and great distances) and Quantum (really small and very short distances) scientist have come up with the “graviton.” The graviton is a particle, so in fits in Quantum, that mediates gravity, so it fits in Relativity. This is an interesting solution to the problem. However, according to Relativity nothing, including particles, travels faster than the speed of light. If this is the case how can a black hole that has gravity as strong as the speed of light have gravity away from the black hole? Wouldn’t the gravitons be stuck inside the event horizon of a black hole because their speed is not high enough to allow for escape?

Let’s take a moment to consider all of the problems discussed above with respect to the science of unification and String Theory. And let’s also consider all of the evidence that exists throughout history and even today regarding UFOs and ETs. Science tells me that String Theory and unification are real, but UFOs are not. This just seems a little backwards to me.

I leave it up to the reader to judge and decide.

FASTER THAN A SPEEDING PHOTON (LIGHT)

I talk and I write about UFOs. Those who actually believe in UFOs still wonder about Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity and the effect it can have on travelling faster than the speed of light. The UFO skeptics always come back with Einstein’s light speed limit to say that even if ETs exists, the universe is too big and they could never get here. Well, here is the thing; Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity does not specifically say anything about limiting speed of an object to the speed of light. Rather what Einstein’s Special Theory of relativity talks about is time, distance and mass dilation. The part that is of concern here is the mass dilation. Specifically, according to the Special Theory of Relativity as an object that has mass reaches speed approaching the speed of light the mass starts to significantly increase. Many have said that a massive object going to the speed of light ends up with infinite mass at the speed of light. It is this “infinite” mass which in turn relates to an “infinite energy” issue many use to say that light speed and faster than light speed is not possible.

Is this really true, no I don’t think so, read on.

First off, before addressing the mass issue let’s go to the exceptions to the speed of light “rule,” starting with Cherenkov radiation. The speed of light is fastest when it is in a vacuum. As light moves through a medium like glass, water and other things the speed of light slows down. In a dielectric medium an electron can, and does, travel faster than the speed of light in that medium. This results in a blue glow that is seen in the water around nuclear reactors. In this case the electron, which has mass, is moving faster than the speed of light and it does not have infinite mass. This example shows that the speed of light can and in fact varies, and there are a number of theories that go deeper into this concept.

Another is Gamma Ray Bursts coming from other parts of our universe. Without going into a lot of detail here, Gamma rays from the universe have been seen traveling faster than the speed of light. There are various theories for this, but the fact of the matter is that faster than light travel is occurring once again with a particle that has mass. If you want to know more about this you can Google “Faster than Light Gamma Ray.” And lastly, there is the issue of “Quantum Entanglement.” This is where two particles are entangled to act like one at the quantum level. Send them off in different directions and no matter where these particles are in the universe when you measure one of them you automatically know stuff about the other one. Again, if you want to know more you can Google “Quantum Entanglement.” I do have say that this whole quantum entanglement issue is very interesting and I will be talking more about it in the future.

There is also a very unique argument, actuality a loophole in Relativity that I recently heard. This loophole is that there is no restriction on a particle that starts out traveling faster than the speed of light. The restriction on travelling faster than light applies to the process of accelerating a massive particle to the speed of light. There is a theoretical particle known as the Tachyon that always travels faster than the speed of light. One of the things that are supposed to make String Theory work is known as Super-Symmetry. There was one version of Super-Symmetry that actually required there be particles (tachyons) that travel faster than the speed of light. This did not make physicists happy, so they kind of ignore this version and go with one that is more to their liking.

The point to be taken from theoretical tachyons is that there is a reality that exists beyond the speed of light. So, there are cracks in the “proposed” faster than light travel restriction. My argument is that the basic speed of light limit is not a restriction, rather it is a transition from the below speed of light reality to the faster than the speed of light reality.  

As stated at the beginning of this piece, the Special Relativity Theory does not say that speeds faster than the speed of light are forbidden. Instead, there is a dilation effect as speeds increases. Specifically, this effect is such that time slows down, distances decrease and mass increases. In other words, as speeds increase there is a conversion factor that calculates the dilation effect changes on an object. This conversion factor is generally known as the Lorentz Transformation. It is my position to stay away from math when writing about things. However, this is one time that I cannot as it is important to see this conversion factor in order to move forward and physically show the transition phase. The following is the conversion factor:

 

 The funny looking symbol to the left of the equal sign is the Greek letter gamma. In English this reads, “gamma is equal to one divided by the square root of one minus velocity squared divided by speed of light squared,” (‘c’ is used to represent the speed of light). Now here is the part that we have to look at closely, the “v-squared divided by c-squared.” In word processing applications like what I am using, this is written as; v^2/c^2

IF, ‘v’ the velocity of the object is exactly the speed of light, ‘c’, then

“v-squared divided by c-squared” is equal to 1, which leads to;

1 – 1= 0

The square root of 0 is 0, so now we have 1 divided by zero (1/0) in the conversion factor, and this is where the problem/discussion lies.

Many believe 1 divided by zero is undefined so we have a situation where the math blows up and things are said to go to infinity. However, I have been taught that this is not the case because zero is a place holder. This means that division by zero is something that we do not understand yet. There is also another way to look at this, will ‘v’ ever exactly equal ‘c’? As long as the two are never “exactly” equal there are no problems.

Currently when doing experiments colliding protons and atoms, the colliders can accelerate a proton up to 99.9999991 percent of the speed of light, which is awfully close to the speed of light. Let’s think about this for a moment, what if something happens and there is suddenly a power surge that instantly accelerates the proton up to 100.000001 percent of the speed of light (there are other ways this could happen but going into them would make this piece too long). In other words, a speed that is just barely faster than the speed of light. What happens? Look at the math in the conversion factor. In this case that v^2/c^2 (v-squared divided by c-squared) becomes greater than 1 (one) so the number under the square root sign is not zero, rather it is a negative number.

A negative number under the square root sign is not a problem as it is mathematically acceptable. In essence the negative number under the square root sign represents a transition into another branch of math that is used for many things. In other words, there is nothing mathematically or physically incorrect with the above evaluation, which means it represents a valid interpretation of the currently available information.

One last point to cover, we have an electron traveling very close to the speed of light. Would not the expectation be that its mass would be significantly increased because it has to be approaching an infinite mass? Since the Lorentz transformation is available I did the math. At 99.9999991% of the speed of light, the mass of the electron increased by a factor of 7454. This is a long way from infinite. And, there are many other consideration for accelerating up to and then above the speed of light that I have not discussed.

The point for consideration here, we are still learning about the today’s physics so we should not be so quick to write off anything.

RIP Professor Freeman Dyson

I need to take a moment to recognize an outstanding mathematician and physicist who passed away on February 28, 2020, Professor Freeman Dyson. Professor Dyson really was a brilliant man who motivated me in many ways. He won numerous awards and recognition and has theorems and mathematical processes named after him. Despite his many achievements and recognition he was never considered for a Nobel Prize, an oversight many of his colleagues questioned. There was a theory for this Nobel oversight of Professor Freeman’s accomplishments and contributions to math and science, he was not a Ph.D., he had a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Mathematics. To me this was actually his greatest contribution all of us, he was proof that intelligence and understanding is not based on the kind or amount of initials a person has after their name.

God Speed Professor Dyson. I greatly appreciate all that you have done for math and the sciences and the help you provided me. I hope that this new stage of your life brings you new opportunities and the chance to see one of your greatest predictions, a Dyson Sphere.

ARE UFOs TRYING TO HIDE FROM US

On my previous post, NOW YOU SEE ME NOW YOU DON’T, I discussed and incident involving the Chilean military in 2014. Quick recap, a Chilean military helicopter was out testing a new infrared device and filmed a UFO in the infrared wave length of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum. And, this UFO was not physically seen by the helicopter crew, picked up by the visual camera or seen on the helicopter or ground control RADAR. In other words, if this helicopter crew had not been testing new infrared equipment, this UFO would have never been seen by anybody here on the planet earth.

The ‘dumb luck’ observation of this UFO raises a couple of different questions. The first one, which is not the most important one, is how many UFOs are visiting our planet and we have no idea they are here? Since these “masked” UFOs cannot be seen and/or are not seen, there is no way that this question can ever be answered. As for not being seen on RADAR, this is not that unusual as there have been many visual UFO sightings without being picked up on RADAR. Reversing this, how many objects have been picked up on RADAR but not visual seen? This too is a number that we cannot specifically know.

So, considering all of the ways that we just discussed for UFOs not to be seen, it is easy to conclude that the visual sightings that do occur and are documented represent a fraction of the total number of UFOs visiting Earth.

The second question and the more important one, are these UFOs and their occupants specifically trying to avoid detection? Said another way, are these UFOs coming to our planet and then specifically trying do to all they can to avoid detection? This poses a related secondary question, why would any UFO/ET do this? It is easy enough to think of both good and bad reasons as to why UFOs/ETs would want to “hide” their presence.

The above question is actually related to a question regarding UFOs that has been around for a long time; why are UFOs/ETs here in the first place? I have been fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to read multiple papers on this topic. The general consensus is that UFOs/ETs have been coming to Earth for a long time and that their intentions are peaceful. Of course this is something we can never know for sure as ETs are the only ones that really know why they are here. But, there really is no indication that they have any harmful intentions. Me personally, I believe that they are here just watching to see how we progress.  I also believe that when the time is right, they will show themselves. When is the right time? Only ET knows.

Our universe is filled with wonders and for humans it has many unanswered questions. I firmly believe that in due time all questions will get answers. And, this includes all questions associated with UFOs and ETs.

NOW YOU SEE ME, NOW YOU DON’T

In 2014 a Chilean Military helicopter was out testing a new infrared device and they picked up a UFO. This case was unusual because according to the information supplied the helicopter crew could not visually see the UFO, it did not show up on an HD visual camera, and it was not on the helicopter or ground control RADAR. Specifically, if not for the fact that this military helicopter crew was trying out a new infrared device this UFO would have never been seen. This got me to thinking, how many UFOs may actually be visiting us every day that we cannot see?

The first thing necessary to answer the above questions is to figure out how hard is it to hide from our sight and our radar? Physically, it is not that difficult. Technologically, for us here on earth this is where the problem lies.

Around the year 1672 Sir Isaac Newton was doing experiments with light and prisms. He discovered that white light, the light we use to see, is actually made up of 6 individual colors. These colors are red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet. Newton went on to theorize that objects we see do not actually have color; instead every object absorbs some of the colors and reflects the others. It is the reflected color that we see thus giving any object the color of the light reflected. In other words, if white light and all of its associated colors are absorbed creating a situation of no reflected light by an object we will never see the object.

For clarity, this needs to be explored a bit more. Visible light and RADAR are considered to be part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum, EM for short, which is the figure below.

RADAR waves are included in the microwave portion of the spectrum. We also have to note that the above figure shows us that energy of the EM spectrum increases as you move to the left of the spectrum, the shorter wave lengths. The above figure shows us that the Visible Light that we are able to see is a very small part of the EM spectrum. Our own daily experience and the physics discovered by Newton clearly shows us that absorption of visible light is not that difficult. Physically, the Chilean UFO simply has to absorb the visible light portion of the EM spectrum and we will never see it. Another way to look at this, the UFO can simply not reflect the visible light. This has to be stated because absorption and non-reflection is not necessarily the same thing.

The absorption/non-reflection of visible light discussed above also applies to microwaves. Microwave absorption is very familiar in that microwave ovens are used in almost every kitchen around to assist with cooking. Here is the other thing about microwaves; their absorption is generally associated with heat. Our food absorbs the microwaves, it gets hot and cooks. And, as our food cooks it gives off heat. Therefore, it is a reasonable presumption that anything else that is absorbing microwaves, RADAR waves in this case, is also going to tend to heat up to some extent. I need to note here that on average RADAR waves are generally at the low end of the microwave portion of the EM spectrum which in turns means they are the lower energy microwaves.  

One other thing that the energy from our sun does, it heats up our atmosphere. And, on bright sunny days we can also get hot. In simplest terms, this heating is associated with absorption of the light-wave energy. We can see from the figure that the EM spectrum is directly related to energy. So, if the Chilean UFO is absorbing visible light waves and radar waves there is a reasonable expectation that the UFO is going to heat up. Well, guess what part of the EM spectrum a heated object gives off….. Infrared.

Putting this all together, absorption of EM spectrum waves, specifically visible light and RADAR, is straight forward physics and to some extent it is something that occurs in our everyday lives. So, a UFO that absorbs or does not reflect these two types of waves is not radical physics. And by absorbing and not reflecting this particular wave energy, the UFO becomes invisible to us. However, there is a cost to this absorption of energy, heat that has to be radiated resulting in an infrared signature. But, we do not see or look in the infrared part of the EM spectrum so unless we were close enough to feel the heat being radiated; a UFO could be flying around us and our world without ever being noticed. In this case the Chilean helicopter just happened to be in the right place at the right time using the right equipment to see the UFO.

In other words, the UFOs that we actually see could easily be just a small portion of the UFOs that are actually visiting our planet. There is no way of knowing how many craft are flying around our world every day because their technology is better than ours and it allows them to absorb and/or non-reflect the EM spectrum waves that we use to see them. 

ENTERTAINMENT OVER FACTS, UNACCEPTABLE

Recently I was watching a show on the structures at Nan Madol. These structures are another incident of nobody knows how they were built. Here are a few basic facts for background. Nan Madol is on the Island of Pohnpei in Micronesia. There are around 130 structures built out of Basalt pillars that were believed to have been mined about 25 miles away. The actual date of the building of these structures is believe to be sometime around the 11th to 13th century. It is estimated that 827,000 tons of material was used to build the structures. Some of the stones/pillars are light enough to be carried by hand while others weigh up to 50 tons. And, parts of some of the structures are built in the surrounding sea. As stated above, nobody knows how these structures were built with the limited tools available at the time.

As part of the show they wanted to show what the structure under the water looked like. So, they had a small underwater drone they sent over toward the structure. Well, as the drone approached the structure under the water the video signal from the drone was lost. It just so happened they had another similar drone that was also sent over to the same area of the structure under the ocean and it too lost the video signal. They made it a point to say that both drones had been checked the day before and were operating properly.

Given the signal loss from two underwater drones it was determined that both drones failed due to some type of electro-magnetic (EM) interference from the under the ocean water part of the structure. Considered with the unique aspects and unknowns associated with Nan Madol a secondary conclusion was reached that there had to be some type of ET assistance in building the structures. And, it was further concluded that because the underwater portion of the structure had some type of electro-magnetic charge the ET help had have used some kind of anti-gravity ET technology that charged the Basalt stones.

All things considered the above line of thinking and conclusions make for a legitimate hypothesis. However, there was no testing of this hypothesis even though testing of it could have easily been done, and should have been done, given the adjacent surrounding structures. The failure to test the hypothesis and obtain further evidence regarding ET involvement in the building of the structures was a significant error. This missed evidentiary opportunity can result in significant questioning of any further conclusions associated with Nan Madol and ET involvement.

As for testing the hypothesis/conclusions stated in the show, if alien anti-gravity technology was used for the underwater part of the structures and contaminated these Basalt columns, then it was also used for the above water portions of the structure. If the ET anti-gravity technology resulted in an EM charge to the underwater portion of the structure, then it should have also caused an EM charge to the above water portions of the structure. Testing for this EM contamination could have been done by simply turning the drone on and walking up to above water wall and see if this area of the wall caused the drone signal to fail. This simple test could have been done all over the Nan Madol area. At the very least the quarry where the Basalt columns was believed to have been mined should have also been tested to verify there was nothing associated with the area of the mining that could have caused the EM charge to the underwater Basalt used for the construction.

There is a secondary evidentiary issue regarding the EM conclusion for the Basalt columns, always make sure that there is no contamination of your evidence. So, you have Basalt columns under ocean water that you are trying to view but you cannot because your underwater drones keep losing signal and your conclusion is that the Basalt columns have an EM charge due to being put into place by alien anti-gravitational technology. So what does sea water have that fresh water does not have? Salt. Salt is an ionic compound, meaning it has an extra electric charge. So if the underwater Basalt columns do in fact have an EM charge isn’t the most likely reason due to the constant sea water motion around the columns?

Let’s recap;

Two underwater drones that were working failed when they get near Basalt columns that are under sea water.

The conclusion is these columns picked up an EM charge and this is what is caused the drones to fail.

Because of the unique characteristics of the structures that are underwater and their age, the conclusion is that the Basalt columns had to have been put into place by alien anti-gravity technology.

This conclusion can easily be tested by testing nearby columns above the sea water, and testing at the quarry site. However, no verification testing is done.

And, the fact that these columns are under salt water which could account for the EM charge is never considered.

Put all of these things together and you have evidence contamination by the salt water surrounding the Basalt columns in question that could have caused any EM charge on the underwater columns. And, no side testing was done which could have easily confirmed or denied the EM charge on the underwater columns.

The issue of alien and UFO visitation is a very important topic with respect to today’s physics and science so it needs to be investigated completely and more important legitimately. Reporting rushed, unsupported, untested conclusions based on contaminated evidence for the sake of audience entertainment only degrades this important topic. The UFO community deserves and is entitled to much better than this. Furthermore, the unique overall design and history of the Nan Madol structures speak for themselves. They do not need sloppy and incomplete work to try and justify a pre-existing conclusion. In other words, the UFO and ET community already has an uphill fight for legitimacy; do not make this fight any harder for the sake of entertainment.

I believe that there is change afoot in the scientific community. My position has always been that when it comes to UFOs and ETs today’s scientists should not be saying they are impossible, rather they should be asking what do those flying the UFOs know that I don’t. Pushing entertainment over facts only sets back the coming changes in physics and the sciences.

PHILOSOPHICAL PHYSICS

“Physics.” Say this word in a conversation or bring it up as a topic to talk about and you will completely kill the conversation or people will immediately start walking away. The word strikes fear into the hearts of the average person. Not because it is associated with anything bad. To the contrary, the word refers to basic rules and laws regarding what makes our world and universe work. However, these universal laws and rules have the bad rap of being hard to understand and this is what scares the average person. This is especially true in our world today because of other words associated with the word “Physics.” The words “quantum,” “relativity” and “string theory” are the key words of today’s physics and in the case of these words there are so few people that understand what these things are. Today’s physics has progressed to the point well beyond the level of understanding of today’s average person. 

Is this what nature and our universe intended for us? I for one do not believe so.

How do we address the complexity of today’s physics with respect to the average person of today? One way to do this is to go back to the beginning and look at how things were at the start. In this case the start is with the ancient Greeks about 2,600 years ago.

The word “Physics” in ancient Greek comes from the word “nature” and/or “natural science.” This in turn morphs into the study of nature, and then gives us the meaning we have today which is the science that studies nature and the properties of matter and energy. And, since the word “Physics” comes from the ancient Greeks, there must be some accompanying ancient Greek Physicists. The first Greek Physicist is believed to be Thales of Miletus, (c. 624 BCE – c. 546 BCE). Also in the mix of early physicists are Pythagoras of Samos (c. 570 BCE - c. 495 BCE), known for developing the Pythagorean Theorem, and Aristotle (c. 384 BCE - c. 322 BCE).

There is another factor associated with all three of these ancient Greek Scholars that must also be addressed, and that is they were also some of the first ancient Greek Philosophers. In other words, physics and philosophy both started about 2,600 years ago, and these three scholars are part of the beginning of both of these disciplines. Since these scholars defined physics from its beginning, we should also look at how they and their contemporaries in ancient Greek also defined philosophy in its beginning.

“The love of wisdom” is the general translation of the ancient Greek word for philosophy. In essence, the ancient Greeks were working on understanding the world through their intelligence and by gaining knowledge. They were trying to move away from a world view based on religion and myths. It is important to note that nothing about this view relates to having a thorough understanding of the mathematical concepts and formalism of the physics 2,600 years ago. In today’s world the philosophical undertaking for what we are discussing is the connection of human thought and the basic workings of the universe we live in.  Again, there is nothing in the current view of philosophy that requires a working knowledge of complex mathematical concepts and formalism of any of today’s sciences. Rather, it is our own thoughts on the basic workings of our universe.    

Fast forward around 2,000 years to another philosophical principle from the 14th century, “Occam’s Razor.” The current general interpretation of this principle is that if there is more than one solution to a problem the simplest solution is most likely the correct solution. Another title for Occam’s Razor is Occam’s Principle, which it is important to note, is a philosophical principle and not a scientific principle. According to this Occam’s Principle if there is an incident/event that has two solutions/explanations, the one with the least amount of assumptions is most likely the correct solution/explanation. Stated another way, the greater the complexity of a solution/explanation, the greater the probability the solution/explanation is incorrect.

Around 1830 - 1840 Occam’s Razor led to the Law or Principle of Parsimony. In essence the Principle of Parsimony says that a theory should be the most economical or simplest explanation of an event or phenomenon. It has also been said that Parsimony suggests that a theory should be natural and have an aesthetic quality. Considering today’s physics with the Law of Parsimony indicates that Quantum Physics, String Theory and, to some extent, maybe even Relativity should be simpler and more natural. In other words, saying the word “Physics” should not be sudden death for a conversation or gathering.

Even though Occam’s Razor and the Law of Parsimony are recognized as philosophical principles, there is nothing that states they cannot also be applied to theories in physics.

I am reminded of a quote an old friend of mine used to say, “I am not a weatherman but I can still tell you when it is raining.” By extension, it is possible for anyone to say, “I am not a physicist, but I can still question things that don’t make sense.” I believe that we owe it to ourselves to question today’s physics. This is not to say that today’s physics is wrong, rather it is to question it to make sure that it is at least partially right and in its simplest form.