“The idea came like a flash of lightning and in an instant the truth was revealed.”
Nikola Tesla
BEYOND
EINSTEIN
1.) Einstein fucked up big time!
He made a critical error in his theory of relativity that launched all physics research off into the weeds. The foundation of the standard model of physics, the roadmap for all physics research, is rotten and needs to be fixed before we can begin advancing.
2) The physics establishment is controlled by a "peer review" process. If a physicist deviates from accepted talking points, he/she will be excommunicated from the church of Einstein. Short of a massive new discovery (which will not happen with our current research trajectory), the peer review process is not a self-correcting system.
3) Education is a two-edged sword; if what you learn is correct, you can advance much more quickly into uncharted waters. If the education is flawed and you believe it to be correct, you will be intellectually crippled. A flawed education is unintended brainwashing, something very difficult to correct. The last seven generations of brilliant young people were taught that Einstein is a god, and we do not question his theories. So now, we are where we are... sitting on piles of crap theory. Libraries full of garbage!
4) Today's physicists were indoctrinated into the church of Einstein in school. If you didn’t drink the Kool-Aid over your 20-year education process, you did not make it into the professional field. Nobody in the mainstream will even mention that Einstein’s thought experiment might be wrong, even though we know that a large percentage of the variables he used in it have proven incorrect. Garbage in, garbage out.
All of this will be supported by examples that cannot be dismissed and by sound bites from mainstream physicists; they all have doubts but are unwilling to stand up and take a stance. for good reason...
Question the foundation of the model and kiss your career goodbye. Stay low, go with the flow. This is scientific trench warfare, do NOT raise your head, or a sniper will shoot you... We will introduce a correction to the model and go into each physics silo, identify the observations driving theory through both theoretical lenses, and see what we get.
Ours will be compelling if we do this well. At best, this will change the world; at worst, I hope that it might embolden more people to question science's first principles... we need change. I've made adjustments for grammar, spelling, and a bit of clarity while maintaining the original message and tone.
commentary
The Thoughts of Cree 1
read this
Click here to buy now!
corrected theories
Electron Orbitals Theory:
An interesting exercise is to track the evolution of orbital theories from the 1900 Bohr model. The theory keeps changing based on new observations, but the word "orbit" stays, even though we know they don’t orbit. Legacy theories die very slowly; they evolve to protect the status quo. Particle physicists’ orbital theory is now different from the chemists' theory of molecular bonding and shared electrons—inner science conflict.
Today's theory has electrons jumping from point to point, defying everything we know about matter. But so what? The math works. The movement has electrons traveling at close to the speed of light in wavelike orbitals—wow.
Clear Energy Theory: Electron occurrences are similar to lightning occurrences in a thunderhead; each occurrence is an independent energy event. 99.99% of electron occurrences dissolve back into the energy field they emerged from, while 0.01% are absorbed into the nuclei. As the Clear Energy converges on the nuclei, it reaches a saturation point, and massless energy begins to transition into physical energy, occupying a footprint around the nuclei. The plasma field forms, and an electron storm commences. Simple, clean, consistent with all scientific observations, no fundamental forces, no electrons moving in waves at high speeds. And scalable into a unified theory.
So, galaxies that are farther away have a greater redshift—this is consistent with the tired light theory and a static universe. Of course, galaxies farther away have a greater redshift; they are farther away, and the light has to travel much farther. The radiated energy encounters far more obstacles on its journey, passes many more galaxies, bending and spreading out. If there was a big bang, everything should be moving away from everything else. We have many galaxies blue-shifting, by their logic, coming closer to us. Isn’t dark energy pushing us apart?
Galaxies act as giant bumper cars; they move randomly based on local flows of Clear Energy. They repel each other when their black hole balancing mechanism aligns with another's body. Galaxies do occasionally collide when they approach each other on the same plane with the same orientation—and this creates a massive mess that will take billions of years for nature to reorganize.
Just a note: They calculate redshift based on thinking they actually know how far the galaxy is away—they do not! Their distance calculation is based 99% on prior theory.
Hubble's Law, also known as the Hubble–Lemaître law, is the observation in physical cosmology that galaxies are moving away from Earth at speeds proportional to their distance. In other words, the farther they are, the faster they are moving away from Earth. The velocity of the galaxies has been determined by their redshift, a shift of the light they emit toward the red end of the visible spectrum. The discovery of Hubble's Law is attributed to Edwin Hubble's work published in 1929.
The Journey
Over a 30-year period, I experienced scores of extraordinary REM sleep epiphanies. All of them built up to October 8th, 2008, when at 2am, I woke up with a bolt of absolute clarity and had a unified theory of physics that included an on-ramp for the sciences of consciousness and, more importantly for me, an on-ramp for metaphysics.
This journey began in the fall of 1974 when my parents told my brother and me that Mom had been diagnosed with ovarian cancer, at that time a terminal diagnosis. I was 17 and headed back to prep school for my senior year. Over her final four years, I was able to spend a lot of time with her talking openly about the possibility of a continuation of life. The only options for trying to become comfortable with this topic were provided by religious groups; Christianity was the most obvious option. The idea that God was so benevolent and all-caring did not reconcile with the horror of watching my mother get eaten alive from the inside out. The religious theory did not reconcile with the violence and suffering that I watched on TV growing up, war, assassinations, starvation, and seemingly endless suffering. Good people were being punished, and many bad people were doing just fine. If God was so omnipresent and we were his children, why would he let this happen? Well, to understand God, you HAVE to swallow the faith pill first, something I just could not do.
Looking for a theory to support a continuation of life begins with a binary question: is there more to life than what we have here? If your answer is no, then don’t worry about it. I chose yes for two reasons: I am an optimist by nature, and two, if I am wrong, I will never know it, so why not try?
After she died, I started casually looking to science for possible answers. If life does have a purpose and there is a continuation, then there must be some connection between our existence here and what comes after. I found that there was absolutely no room within the standard model of physics for any connection to metaphysics; there wasn’t even an effort within the mainstream to try to understand consciousness. Wow!
Over the years, I read scientific magazines and talked with very smart physicist friends about the current state of our sciences. Everyone was very happy with our physical science driving technological advancement; NOBODY was happy with our theoretical sciences attempting to explain the very small and impossible to see (quantum) or the very large and far away (relativity).
The more I looked into the foundations of relativity and quantum theory, the more dysfunctional it became. It is confused, it conflicts with itself, so much of it is completely illogical, and absolutely all of it is dependent on our foundational theories established in 1930 being correct. Amazingly, our scientific theories were less believable than our religious theories!
Then the epiphanies began to happen. They were all the same: I would come out of REM sleep and bolt awake with answers to questions that floated deep in my subconscious. Things I should not have known, out of the blue. I would have to get out of bed and either leave myself a voice mail or write the thoughts into a journal in order to go back to sleep. I never told anyone about what was happening to me, not even my wife. (I understand now that these experiences are not unique; there are well-documented extraordinary downloads that many people have experienced.)
Many times the epiphanies were incomplete but would lead to future, more complete epiphanies. There was no rhythm to the events; sometimes they would happen a couple of times a month, sometimes they would be years apart, but they kept coming. I made no effort to encourage the process; it was what it was. On October 8th, 2008, I woke up with a simple correction to Einstein's gravitational theory that provided a platform to integrate subatomic theory with astrophysics, a potential unified theory of physics. More importantly, it provided a medium to begin integrating the study of consciousness into a corrected standard model. And it provided me a means to try to theorize a continuation of life, for my own benefit.
I didn’t discuss the unified theory with anyone for fear that it would be invalidated, and I would go back to square one. I liked what I had, and it brought me comfort. I did start to ask friends far more specific questions about the conflicts in the consensus model, trying to learn if I had missed anything. So far, so good. Four years later, I was seated next to a friend who I consider one of the most spiritual people I have ever met, Nikki Johnson. She got me talking (after several cocktails) about my thoughts on metaphysics; she was surprisingly captivated. She made me promise to write this down and communicate it. After several months of inactivity, she called and said she wanted me to meet her
friend Cynthia Husted, a PhD physicist, to discuss my corrected theory. Cynthia had recently recovered from a near-death experience after being bitten several times by a black widow in her sweater, walking up her arm. When she was brought back, she was a different person; she had seen beyond anything she had ever dreamed. She was also open to the idea that Einstein screwed up and was now disillusioned by the state of establishment physics. She was open to discussion.
I had a lot going on with my family and career, and not wanting my theory to be invalidated, I avoided the get-together. We finally met in 2013 at Nikki’s spiritual sanctuary at her home in Northern California and began what would become a 4-year research project into the foundations of the theories that made up the consensus model, looking for areas of conflict with scientific facts. We got access to Stanford University's online libraries, and Cynthia did something I could not do: she went deep into the areas where the two theories had the greatest conflict. We looked at Einstein's original writings and tracked the core theories back to try to understand WHY they were added. Many theories were added before 1935 and never revisited!
It took Cynthia 2 years to get past her educational indoctrination, and she found that not only did the corrected theory provide a unified theory, but it eliminated the need for dozens of band-aid theories added over the last 100 years to prop up an obviously failing model. Things as ridiculous and old as fundamental forces and as new as dark energy and dark matter.
All that I ask of anyone interested in continuing this discussion is that you come in understanding that Einstein very well could have made a first principles error, and 100 years of theoretical research may have been sent off in the wrong direction. You will find that the corrected theory is consistent with all scientific observations BEFORE they were evaluated through the lens of our current model. The only way out of this self-created mess is to go back, correct the first principles error, and view all scientific observations through a correct theoretical lens and see what we have.
