Many professionals I've shared this with are blown away to put it mildly. They include many scientists and engineers. Many of these individuals call it the missing piece to the unification of physics and it comes from the misconception of Einstein's theories. These misconceptions pertain to relativistic time and mass along with the application of scale and that the speed of light is a limit. It currently states that time of the traveling observer slows down and that mass increases compared to the stationary observer. This is flat out incorrect.

There is absolutely no evidence that any particles accelerated to near the speed of light in particle accelerators have their mass increase at all or that time slows down for these particles from our frame of reference. The one experiment boasted by quantum physicists to prove time dilation on quantum particles is riddled with interference from the experimenting apparatus and erroneous misinterpretation in order to fit Einstein's theories as they are currently understood. I will elaborate on this experiment later on.

To understand how Einstein's equations can be interpreted differently, the misconception that the speed of light is limit must be addressed.

This is a hotly debated topic and one which I love to argue over giving different perspectives to consider. Based on my own theoretical research and some very interesting mathematical observations, the speed of light is not a speed limit but remains a constant only because the source of all light is constant. The source of all light are excited atoms. Even the concept of the atom is also a constant as is the concept of stars. Einstein assumed that light was the universal speed limit and he openly stated that this was an assumption. Only by falsification of this claim should it have been accepted by the scientific community but it wasn't. It was accepted as fact based on limited observational data. Accepting anything as fact is not scientific method. An obvious counter argument to the speed of light has always been staring everyone in the face. That argument is that space itself travels faster than light. What is considered the fabric of space (the substance of space-time) is everywhere instantly and this theoretical model was derived from Einstein's own work on relativity and the concept of inertial frames of reference.

Space itself is a point of reference at both points of transition, so it can be mathematically derived that space traveled between both points instantly at an infinite velocity. As hard as that is to conceptualize in physical actuality, my own point is that popularized theories and assumptions must be deconstructed from all conceivable and inconceivable angles and only by doing so will we ever advance our understanding of the Universe. For example, the concept of inertial frames of reference in Einstein's relativity makes several assumptions of which the greatest is that the Universe itself has no frame of reference for everything within it including multiple observers at varying velocities all in reference to the stars, galaxies and galaxy clusters which we all know exist where they are (granted with observable delay of the speed of light by our current observational instrumentation). This is a big assumption in current relativistic physics. That fact is that a universal frame of reference does exist only because it's that obvious; the Universe is all around us.

I call this frame of reference the universal static frame of reference. Essentially Einstein's equations are not wrong but how they were conceptually derived lead them to be interpreted incorrect. Time increases by the Einstein's equation which doesn't mean it slows down for the traveling observer, as seen by the stationary observer, but instead means that the passage of time increases by a factor given in the equation for the traveling observer as seen by the stationary observer. Now what baffles me is that with the advent of the concept of inertial frames of reference, or velocity frames of reference as I prefer to call them, that not all angles and possibilities were analyzed from the many possible reference points and frames (of perception). I will not point fingers at Einstein because he solely introduced several very important concepts, of which relativity is one, into a mathematical framework with his theories of Special and General Relativity. His contribution to science is staggering even if all he did was just have critical thinkers actually think outside the box of conservatism.

Now I will point my finger at the great many scientists that came after Einstein. Why didn't someone, using Einstein's own concepts, not apply this new framework of understanding to a universal frame of reference that is itself static from our point of reference? This lack of foresight and misinterpretation in Einstein's work is so incorrect that it has stifled the progress of science for over a hundred years and it continues to stifle and makes it impossible to unite relativistic and quantum physics ever without inventing silly imaginary mathematical contraptions like String Theory. I find it hard to believe that with so many amazing minds not even one of them thought that perhaps things were being read backwards. My work and paper takes Einstein's theories and expands on it and what I've found is overwhelming. I have found the mathematical unification of physics. That is a big claim that urge you take with a grain of salt. Why? Because you have to objectively analyze it for yourself and contemplate on the details and subsequent ramifications of my paper 'Realitivistic Relativity' and my many related theories in my eBook 'The General Principles of Reality A' (or GPRA). To do otherwise is not science.

Is there proof for these claims?

Yes there is.

There is evidence that astronauts traveling and living in space at high velocities have actually aged faster than people on Earth. There is also evidence that clocks on board spacecrafts have actually diverged from Earth clocks by increasing in time passed. The clocks are dismissed as malfunctioning due to the stresses of space travel, but honestly there is no good explanation and to me this is empirical evidence my theory is correct. The working explanation for the aging as concluded by our space agencies is that increased space radiation ages human tissue faster by damaging it faster than it would be damaged here on Earth. The act of aging is attributed to damages to our DNA and scarring of our flesh over our lifetime. The more one damages his or her body, such as through severe drug addiction and alcoholism, then the faster they age and the more they physically appear older. Induced willingly or allowing it naturally is still aging. You see the big misconception of aging is that aging is the passage of time. Aging is not the passage of time, but they are related. Damages to your body compound over a certain time span and that is what aging actually is.

If you have two individuals, one protected in an underground bunker with thick concrete walls living a healthy lifestyle and another person Sun bathing everyday while drinking alcohol for 3 years, the individual in the bunker would have aged slower physically in relation to the other person absorbing Sun radiation and toxic beverages. Aging is itself also very relative. Now here's my point, if you take two identical individuals, healthy individuals, and put one traveling around the Earth in a heavily shielded spacecraft traveling at enormous velocities while leaving the other individual on Earth, the individual in space will still age faster. The only thing that changed was their velocity frame of reference. In fact, the individual in space was intentionally protected from greater exposure to radiation but still aged faster. This is the evidence all space agencies know. Scientists know that many quantum particles cannot be shielded and travel through your body every moment of everyday even here on Earth and these particles overtime contribute to compounded damages in your body aging you physically. This is a natural and normal state of aging and common to all living creatures on this planet.

The problem is that this natural state of aging increases when you travel at higher velocities. Why? Because the density of this these quantum particles increase at higher velocities and pass through your body in a higher density effectively aging you faster only because your velocity increased. Now apply this reasoning, which is scientifically proven, to the theories of relativity (mine and Einstein's). Space is filled with quantum particles even if they are more diluted than in a piece of matter, but essentially these diluted quantum particles, traveling at enormous velocities, are interrelated with the density of space. It can be said that if observer A is traveling at velocity Y and observer B is traveling at velocity X where Y>>X, that observer A is living in a denser space-time than observer B and one consequence is that time travels faster for observer A than B. The other consequence is if space-time density is higher for observer A than B, then observer A's physical structure would also be affected and essentially be smaller than that of observer B's in order to experience the universal physics the same in all inertial frames of reference. The ratio of matter density to space density would therefore be a physical constant.

As mentioned before, the one experiment favouring Einstein's current time dilation interpretation is riddled with interference from the experimenting apparatus and further compounded by misinterpretations. The experiment deals with a short lived quantum particle that last longer when accelerated to velocities closer to the speed of light in a linearly direction. There are so many problems with this experiment. First of which, and the most significant, are that these particles are being confined in a strong magnetic field produced by the apparatus and then accelerated in a linear direction. If the particle disintegrated along this linear path of acceleration while confined in the strong magnetic field, no one would know because all disintegrated fragments of the particle would still be traveling together in the same direction allowing it to appear to have lived a longer lifespan. This is immensely erroneous. My point here is that one experiment is being accepted as proof of a theory while other anomalous, yet highly empirical, evidence is ignored because they contradict current theory. Why? Science must have no biasness. If there is evidence contradicting an established theory, then that theory must be reanalyzed thoroughly, but this is not the case. The current scientific community, especially those at the helm of the establishment, refuses to entertain, and much less finance, certain evidence and consequential theories in contradiction to established doctrine. They place a large amount of effort in reinterpreting certain contradictory evidence in favour of established theories obscuring the data and confounding established theory with nonsensical mathematical interpretations. Take myself for example. I had a theory, a hypothesis, for many years about relativity and a few years ago I formulated the theory mathematically as simply as possible just as Einstein did with his Special Theory of Relativity. I wanted to make it absolutely understandable by the majority of readers and not just elite scientists. To me, it makes no sense deriving a theory that only a few can ever understand. To my astonishment, I derived an equation that subsequently calculated Jupiter's mass to the numerical value of an electron charge which validated my initial hypothesis exactly. I was ecstatic, but still skeptical so I didn't share it with anyone and instead decided to write a non-formal eBook with all my theories on pretty much everything.

About a year later, I was looking at my relativistic mass equation again, the one the calculated Jupiter's mass to an electron charge, and noticed that the scale value (The Reality Scale Constant) I had derived, which was key to all my equations, was further composed mathematically of the speed of light to power of the e (the mathematical constant); S=c^e. Now I had two mathematical coincidences and not just one. The probability of two coincidences relating to each other and in circular reference to the hypothesis was staggering (mathematically improbable). I figured it was time to publish my theory to the scientific community because I was armed with not just one coincidence but two. The first person I approached was an open-minded and admired physicist in the scientific publishing business. He read my theory and had a hard time absorbing it initially. Several days later, he contacted me saying that he liked my theory but that he could not endorse my paper. I asked why. He openly said that it would affect his reputation in the physics publishing business and that he couldn't have that. I was disappointed but he gave me some good advice and opened my eyes to the reality in the scientific community beyond the conservatism that I was familiar with. He told me to promote my radical theory and share it with many individuals to gain support for it. Basically, the idea was as I shared it with more and more people that I would start to gain a following in the scientific community for a theory that was," much more viable than String Theory." He mentioned that this was a major paradigm shift which would take time. Of course I realized that it was radical, "but how about the mathematical coincidences?" He replied by saying that was the most compelling part about my theory but even with remarkable data like that the community will still not publish my paper and most likely not give any reason in fear of wording any statement that I might use against them if and when my theory gains mass acceptance.

Reputable scientific journals ignore thousands of papers without ever reviewing them. The junior, assistant and senior editors screen the papers by researching the author and his or her associated institution(s). For all those individuals that are not associated with an academic institution, many journals reject their work outright. These rejections include many individuals from the private sector in companies at the forefront of scientific exploration and technology development. There are even cases of individuals from government agencies being rejected again for the same reason. This is a tragic biasness and practice which is absolutely unacceptable. I know of two other individuals that also have remarkable mathematical coincidences that have also been rejected. One theory is to do with wave theory and the other is to do with an energy theory. Both are nothing but astonishingly remarkable and yet they have the same grievance. Again why would the established community ignore papers that could possibly revolutionize the word? The answer, as posed by a friend of mine, is simple. It's called the herd factor and Dr. Thomas Gold describes it perfectly in his paper titled "New Ideas In Science" ( http://amasci.com/freenrg/newidea1.html).

I am very grateful to UFO Digest for their willingness to share my paper with their community. Please share my work freely with your friends and colleagues.

Sincerely,
Robert L. DeMelo
www.gpofr.com