Simple explanation Einstein's theory of relativity
and another thought about our existence

Written : October 25, 2022 (+ in Jan. 2024 extra clarified in blue)

Evaluation (chapter 5) : (1 year later) updated December 2023

Table of contents:


Simple explanation Einstein's theory of relativity

Another thought about our existence

Artificial Intelligence (AI) (added in March 2024)

Life or consciousness after death (added in July 2024)

The fourth dimension (added in July 2024)

An analysis of quantum mechanics (continuously updated in 2024)

Evaluation, 1 year later (updated December 2023)


When I write about the diabolical USA here, I mean those in power and not the ordinary people, who are usually willing but also very manipulable.

The content of both related websites "Simple explanation Einstein's theory of relativity" (printed out about 100 pages of text) and "Stop the power of veto in the United Nations" has been on the internet for about 10 years (2012 – March 2022), with our mysterious existence linked to the United Nations in a personal attempt to significantly improve life on our Earth through intense cooperation. I strongly believe in that. Out of frustration because the diabolical USA has managed to drive a war between Russia and the Ukraine in which the hatred of Russia has become so great that we have been thrown back in time 50 years (more explanation later in the United Nations website), the diabolical USA very fortunately, I have removed the entire content with the feeling that the Earth is a planet where great backwardness reigns and it may take another 1000 years (or never) does that cooperation ever want to be improved. I had already cleaned both domains, deleted all backups, the original texts and documentation have been definitively lost, all textbooks have been given away, but I still want to add some text once afterwards as a conclusion to this personal endeavor. I will not be busy with the topics after this and am very happy that life is short-lived on this stupid planet (fortunately, I am already a senior, do not leave children behind so I am not directly responsible for their future, but I am worried about the next generations who will have to deal with the same misery century after century due to the lack of growing insight). At the moment (will pass) I only see idiots around me, a kind of half savages that mentally linger on the same level century after century, technically one does grow.

My website "Stop the power of veto in the United Nations" is very anti USA thinking (more explanation later in that website). Remarkably, both websites have always been at the top of Bing in both Dutch and English with simple keywords. In Google only in Dutch but in English almost impossible to find, so I have never been able to distribute my texts well worldwide. I've seen that with other critical texts as well, Google is a public machine for the local language / country. In English, it is mainly a public machine for the USA, which is why the inhabitants of the USA themselves do not get to read these critical texts. Just like in other superpowers. Therefore, everything that is public like on the internet should fall under the United Nations, then you really have the greatest possible freedom to achieve. But yes, from the other side you can also cause conflicts through incitement, as we have seen, for example, in the Middle East and Ukraine. But in a United Nations without veto rights and with world army, this chance has of course become very low.

Simple explanation Einstein's theory of relativity

i) Sources consulted are the book "Very Special Relativity: An Illustrated Guide" by S.B., Wiki miscellaneous information, some scientific reports, and supplemented with some personal thoughts

At the beginning of chapter 5 there is a link to the old content of this website, found later in 2023 in a web archive.

All the original text has been lost, so I will have to bring up texts that are still in my memory. Perhaps this has the advantage that I now have to force myself to explain certain things more briefly and concisely and in a logical order, the inspiration for long explanations is gone (so no more detailed explanation). This may have yielded an idea to also reason vertical shrinkage, see text (now I understand why Einstein found shrinkage with gravitational waves, via energy increase, it's already in the basic theory). And again as I have thought of it myself in addition to facts from the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, whether it is the truth others have to judge, or it may give new ideas. It has now become a short summary (printed out about 16 pages), for a complete understanding as I think, this summary must be read in full up to the last sentence because I always add / build something up.

In 2012, the idea of the timeless, a timeless connection between entangled particles, came to me. The concept of entangled particles in quantum mechanics is that one particle can be on Earth, the other particle on Mars, and because they are entangled with each other, one can change a property of one particle that is then immediately passed on to the other particle. One cannot explain this yet, but my idea is that it is a timeless connection. Then I started to delve into the concept of time (duration) in Einstein's special theory of relativity and finally unravel it in quantum mechanics. As described above, I unfortunately could not get that far at the last minute, and now my interest is gone. But I do want to give an overview now, and thus pass it on to others, how I view these matters now, and briefly summarized. Then the last 10 years have not been completely lost time.

(v = speed of any object e.g. a rocket; c = the speed of light of 300,000 km / second, this second can also be a delayed second; or I sometimes indicate the distance with c = 300,000 km, so that one can calculate the number of seconds by distance; by an object I mean matter to distinguish from light which is not matter, consists of other particles; m = the mass of matter, indicates the amount of matter, since Einstein it is actually the amount of energy, light does not consist of matter, but does have energy; time delay factor = √(1 - (v2 / c2)); γ = (1 / √1 - (v2 / c2)); when I mention a number of x seconds s here, then those are the normal seconds as we know them, sometimes it is added fast or slow s, but that is only to emphasize whether those seconds come from the fast or slow time, but they remain the standard seconds s)

  • I think it came out of nowhere, positive and negative energy, where positive energies attract each other (think gravity) and positive energy and negative energy repel each other. At the Big Bang, this energy arose out of nowhere, where matter (and light) is presented by the positive energy, and space itself is presented by the negative energy. So matter (positive energy) experiences opposition in the space of the negative energy that must be overcome. No one knows what energy is, but that it cannot be lost and explain all movements arithmetically. Positive energy is stored in particles (space also consists of transparent particles but with negative energy) and during the Big Bang everything was set in motion and thus everything got positive energy, so that this model is mathematically correct. As is well known, we ourselves are also constantly in motion via the Earth, which travels through space as part of a system as a result of the Big Bang. It is possible that around some objects far in space there is more negative energy than usual (or compressed), so that the speeds of those rotating objects may be higher than expected. The law of conservation of energy says that no energy can be lost, and that is also evident from this reasoning. If energy were lost, the amount of positive and negative energy would no longer be added together to nothing. It is true if the same amount of positive and negative energy would disappear. If the universe were to expand, so there would be space and therefore negative energy, it seems to me that positive energy would be added somewhere (possibly from the Big Bang and out of sight). Also, I think that positive energy only exists in particle form, so particles are purely positive energy, anything that costs positive energy is always an exchange of particles. If the positive energy of an object increases while the number of particles remains the same, e.g. an object that travels through space at great speed, the positive energy of those particles increases. With light, this seems to be different. Light consists of particles called photons, and always have the same positive energy, if one allows the energy of a light wave to increase in some way, then the number of particles or photons increases, so the energy per photon always remains the same. But if light is created on a moving object, the energy of a photon will be slightly higher than if that object is stationary. This later makes it clear why the speed of light remains constant but time passes more slowly (or duration increases). But it is true that the energy of photons (light particles) differ slightly if the frequency of light is different (see later).
  • In my opinion, gravity is the phenomenon that temporarily gives an object positive energy to another object in order to attract it. Because during the route travelled, the speed of the attracting object increases, increasing its positive energy, once on the surface of the object that gave the positive energy, the positive energy granted is returned. An object that moves at a certain speed in orbit around the Earth is in an equilibrium situation, where microscopically it always gives a piece of positive energy back to the Earth and is given the same piece of positive energy by the Earth. So you can also do this for planets around the Sun, the Moon around the Earth etc. Weightlessness in a spacecraft, for example, arises because the maximum positive energy has already been granted to you by gravity, if you go / can move from that situation you no longer experience (extra) gravity and you can move with little positive energy.
  • The concept of time (duration) is often done enigmatically such as going back in time (only science fiction) etc., but time (duration) is nothing special, it is the opposition of the negative energy in space that all objects and light experience when moving (a kind of friction but without energy loss). With time (duration) one measures movement. For movement one needs space, so time (duration) and space are therefore intertwined with each other. With the aid of time (duration), we actually compare a standard movement with the movement to be measured. The standard movement is derived from a day duration, between midnight to midnight, finally this is recorded in some mechanism or even in an atomic clock, a certain standard movement corresponds to 1 second, or 1 minute or 1 hour etc. So if we are going to measure the time (duration) of a random movement, then we can say that a certain number of meters are traveled in a certain time (duration) e.g. 3 meters / second. In fact, this means that 3 meters have moved while the Earth has moved a certain number of meters around its axis (1 second), so there are 2 movements compared to each other. Movement of an object (positive energy) in space experiences opposition from the negative energy, but also on Earth, but on Earth a movement also experiences friction by other particles (as opposed to one-off required positive energy in the space for movement, friction continuously costs positive energy). A clock is made in such a way that it is only sensitive to the opposition of the negative energy as in space, so measure the time on Earth just like in space, if it storms on Earth the clock will not be bothered by it. Why does movement in space only take one-off positive energy? Because the transparent particles with negative energy cannot absorb positive energy, they do have a repellent effect.
  • It was discovered in physics that measuring the speed of light, with a clock, always yielded the same number, whether one was not in motion, or was in motion at high speed together with the clock taken (below in case of simultaneity I have made an example where this is clearly visualized so that this is less difficult to understand). Via Lorentz this was the beginning of Einstein's theory of relativity, it turned out that time went slower (or duration increases) with movement (so with the clock that is also in motion). So in motion it takes longer that light has travelled a distance of 300,000 km, e.g. on a moving plateau (300,000 km long) through the space on which a ray of light is created. This is not that difficult to explain. If an object moves faster through space, this costs more positive energy once due to the opposition of the negative energy (if you think away the friction, you can compare this by walking slowly or quickly through water). Suppose this object is a clock, then it costs once more positive energy for that clock as an object (the total of all parts), so the average energy of all particles increases, therefore the opposition also increases, if one were to create light in this clock then the energy of a light particle (photon) is slightly increased compared to the clock stationary, so light also gets more opposition, and light determines the time (duration), so compared to the clock stationary, all movements go slower either the clock runs slower or time goes slower (or duration increases). One could get movements faster with extra internal energy (then it no longer functions mechanically as a clock), but one cannot increase the energy internally of the photons so the time (duration) does not change. So, for example, in a moving person everything goes slower, including the aging process, so a person could get older, this of course only applies to high speeds and our body may not be set up for that, so in practice this may not be possible. The delay factor for time (or duration increases) depends on the speed of the object (can be a clock) and the speed of light. So the speed of light is also intertwined with the opposition or the negative energy in space. You can also say that the speed of light is the maximum speed that is possible due to that opposition or negative energy. So with more opposition, light also goes slower within a moving object (which could be a clock, a train, the Earth, etc.), because time goes slower (or duration increases), the local speed of light remains the same (but in a slower time or longer duration). So the opposition to light particles (photons) by the negative energy is such that the local speed of those light particles (or light) is always the same (in any time, fast or slow, or short / long duration). So the opposition to light particles (photons) by the negative energy is such that the local speed of those light particles (or light) is always the same (in any time, fast or slow, or short / long duration). So the speed of light is a constant in nature that indicates that the maximum distance to be covered within a time (duration) is always the same. That constant (or time / duration) is encapsulated in space and in the transparent particles with negative energy. Einstein also found the famous formula e = m.c2, so all matter is a certain amount of positive energy according to a fixed formula. If that matter moves faster (in space), it costs more positive energy once, the mass (m) therefore increases, so the total positive energy remains e = m.c2.
  • This above also clarifies even more with energy. If an object (e.g. a rocket) is allowed to move faster in space, this costs extra energy, the energy of that object increases to overcome the greater opposition. So the average energy of all the particles in that object increases to overcome that greater opposition. If something is made to move in that object, e.g. a ball, then that ball already has extra energy in it from the opposition of that object (is distributed over all parts of that object, including that ball). With the help of extra energy, one can make that ball move, but due to the greater opposition, that movement is slower. Also light particles go slower, because those photons have a slightly higher energy when creating light, and therefore more opposition, actually the opposition of light particles is a combination of their energy and frequency of light, so time also goes slower (or duration increases). The opposition of matter is greater than that of light, so the speed of motion of matter is always slower. But that extra energy for that movement, for example, of that ball is comparable to if that object was stationary. Because that ball goes slower, it also costs less energy compared to the fact that the object was stationary. So if everything slows down in an object that moves faster, that doesn't mean that one needs extra energy to move as when the object was stationary. For example, on Earth one can move quickly or slowly, which costs more or less energy. In the example below about simultaneity, a certain movement is viewed more slowly simultaneously. One could well make that movement go faster if you do not look at simultaneity, but the movement of light does not get faster, so time always goes slower (or duration increases).
  • I have to explain things even better for the newcomer. Time (duration) exists on / around a moving object, that object can be e.g. the Earth (moving through space, the Earth has our time / duration), or a moving train, or two birds with one stone, a moving clock (which points to its own time / duration). So when an object moves you indicate the speed of that object in your own time (say local time / duration), e.g. of a moving train on Earth, but the time (duration) of around / on that moving train is another time that goes slower according to the above (or increasing duration). Also, by time I do not mean what time it is, but the passage of time (duration), so the clock starts ticking faster or slower by the opposition of the negative energy in space. The standard motion seemed to be the rotation of the Earth, so we expressed the time (duration) in seconds. But because you can take that movement further or closer to the axis of the Earth, you cannot consider it as the standard movement for comparison, that must be a movement that always yields the same distance in 1 fast or slower second, so the standard movement is the movement of light in 1 second, fast or slow (short / longer duration). In every situation, light moves 300,000 km per (local) second, so via the path of light you can also calculate the associated time (duration) in (local) seconds (fast or slow, short / longer duration). All other times of movement of objects must always correspond to what distance light could have travelled in the meantime, there is only 1 time (duration). Only a moving object (i.e. matter) has a (local) time (duration) around / on that object, light is not matter but can only be generated on an object, light does not just consist of itself, so the speed of light (which is always the same) is always determined in the local time (duration) of the object where it originated (e.g. a lamp, the Sun etc.).
  • You can easily deduce a formula that the delay factor of time (√(1 - (v2 / c2)); later I find 1 - (v2 / c2)) literally has to do with the positive energy growth of the object ((ek_new / et_old) = (½.m.v2 / m.c2) = -½.(1 - (v2 / c2)) + ½). So if an object travels faster this costs extra positive energy, the ratio to its (old) total positive energy, is the delay factor, so time / duration (a traveling clock) is related to the growth of positive energy. Because of the Big Bang, the Earth travels through space at a certain speed and that includes time (duration) as we know it. If that Earth were to travel through space at greater speed, our time would be slower (or increasing duration). Gravity therefore also influences time (duration), a clock in space runs faster than on Earth. Because the amount of average positive energy of that clock or other object on Earth is greater than in space. Even a hanging clock above the earth's surface gets positive energy from the Earth, so time runs slower (or increasing duration). The growth of positive energy does not only have to come through movement, every growth of positive energy influences time (duration). For example, think of a walking male on the train in such a way that the male stands still in front of you. The positive energy of that walking man has grown through 2 movements, the train and his walking, therefore his watch runs slower than yours although it seems that both are stationary. So you can imagine that with an increase in energy due to a passing gravitational wave, time slows down for a while and the matter shrinks (see later), as the latter has already been demonstrated in practice.
  • In my opinion, the time delay only applies to an object where there is positive energy growth. So if A really moves from B, then the time on A goes slower from B reasoning (or increased duration), but the other way around the time from A to B goes faster (or decreased duration), because B doesn't really move from A. So in reasoning one has to figure out where there is positive energy growth. One can, of course, both be in motion. But it is true that both A and B cannot perceive whether a time (duration) is slower or faster for the other (if one does not know it), one perceives events in the other as if they take place in their own time (duration). This is clearly reflected in the example of a photon below (but also applies to a moving object). Whether the photon was launched at A or B, both observe the same distance travelled as if the photon had been launched at their own, so in their own associated time (duration).
  • It also follows from the theory of relativity that an observer of a moving object sees that object narrower, which is called length contraction. Length contraction is considered something visual but not real, so the object does not really narrow down. That is due to contradictions because people think (I think) that above both A and B see time slowing down (or increased duration) with the other and that is incorrect in my opinion. I have shown with drawings of a moving wagon (documentation is no longer available, yes, see chapter 5 and web archive) that the theory of relativity can only be correct if the delay factor and the length contraction (which is real, I call that shrinkage factor, a moving ruler really shrinks in all directions, or by positive energy growth) the square of the value is now known. Later I was even able to deduce this from an old drawing (thought, see chapter 5 and web archive). One takes a moving object B and lets a ray of light reflect from a stationary object A. Then the time (duration) of that ray of light on the way there is seen shorter (1 - (v / c)) from B, and back longer (1 + (v / c)) seen from B. One can then say, on balance on B only (1 - (v / c)).(1 + (v / c)) = 1 – (v2 / c2) ray of light is observed. I think that's why all matter in a black hole shrinks into particles because of the enormous positive energy growth. When heated, matter can sometimes expand or shrink during cold, I think these are local effects that come on top of it. Going back to that documentation, this meant the following. If one fires a photon under a moving train car, and a photon along the railway but also under that train car, then both must be observed simultaneously in the same location by an observer along the railway (or two detectors on the track), and that location under the train car is a little further away due to the theory of the length contraction, so this seems impossible to me, which is why I am thinking of shrinking (see later) so that those locations become equal. If less ray of light is observed means that this light is observed compressed, the photons are closer together, so no photons disappear. And less observed ray of light does mean that the (local) time slows down (duration increases). You can also see this in the drawing below of the moving train carriage. A ray of light of 1.5c is reflected from a standstill, without length contraction 0.75c is the simultaneous moment in the train car, in that point 1 – (v2 / c2) less ray of light is observed in the train car, so the (local) time slows down (duration increases) by a factor of 1 – (v2 / c2). Actually, with this formula 1 – (v2 / c2) you wouldn't even have to think about shrinkage, but vertically it wouldn't be correct, but as reasoned under, that could be compensated with a correction in simultaneity, with a vertical ray of light, the formula 1 – (v2 / c2) is very clear, but let's analyze further. But shrinkage does fit well with the consequences of passing gravitational waves (see later) and what might happen in a black hole. But as reasoned under, it must still be shrinkage, otherwise the length of objects with a laser (so light) measured in a stationary system would be different than in a moving system by an observer in the stationary system.
  • It must now be clear what exactly time (duration) is, it is the opposition that a standard movement (light) experiences in space, the negative energy as I think. In a black hole, there is 1 point where the time is 0, or timeless. That is because no movement is possible at that point, the amount of positive energy or particles is infinitely large, even though this would be a finite amount, by approaching that point infinitely close, the positive energy in that point becomes infinitely large. Remember that the black hole as a whole is also in motion, but in that one point no movement is possible anymore so there can be no time (duration). This is a state of timelessness. Another state of timelessness as I think is between particles that are entangled with each other. The information between them is infinitely fast or immediate so that there is no opposition. I even have the idea that time (duration) only exists with matter or positive energy. And that what causes the opposition, the negative energy, is itself timeless, it only responds to positive energy.
  • According to my view, that would mean that space is also timeless, only the matter (or light) in that space experiences time (duration). I also think that time (duration) is an emergent property (gravity too), it only exists at the matter level (or light wave level), so the average positive energy per particle (for a light wave only 1 photon, light consists of vibrating particles called photons, they are energy packets). So around or in matter the same time (duration) prevails, also between particles, but at the level of a particle the time is also 0 (timeless). Because of these emergent properties, it could therefore be possible that all particles within matter are timelessly connected to each other through some channel, they immediately pass on the information to the emergent properties. With the discovery of entangled particles, it may have been discovered that light is able to lay such a channel (of negative energy). Light has an important role, it consists of energy packets, and is therefore also important within matter, so it must be faster than matter.
  • I can now combine all of the above and simultaneity into a clear example. See this example in Figures 1 and 2 below. In fact, light can also be used as a clock, because 300,000 km of light is always 1 second, even if time goes slower (or increased duration). For example, if an object moves away from us, so that time there goes slower (or increased duration), simultaneity or the same moment with us, is determined by the converted faster time (or decreased duration) but also by the distance to us, because light must also bridge that distance and that also takes time (duration). If, for example, 2 people stand still in relation to each other, then events are simultaneous for them, the clock indicates the same time for both. If those 2 people are in a moving train, ditto, the slower running clock indicates the same time for both. But simultaneity in movements, e.g. between the stationary person and a person in a moving train, is different. The further forward that person is on that train, the longer it takes for it to be simultaneous with that stationary person. The Lorentz transformation is a formula in which between each location and time with us, a location and time on that other object can be determined so that they are simultaneous, with a clock on both sides one can not calculate simultaneity, so distance also plays a major role. My own example now. Suppose that a moving train car has a speed of v = ½c and that a ray of light is created in that train car (on the far left of the wall), an observer A travels with that train car and measures the speed of light in a slower time (or increased duration). If, as observer B, one also measures that ray of light along the rails, so in a faster time (or decreased duration), it must also measure the same speed in its faster time (or increased duration). With the Lorentz transformation, it is then found that observer B, for example, measures the ray of light after 1.5 seconds at a distance of 1.5c, the speed of light, the train car has traveled 0.75c in distance after 1.5 seconds, within the train car the ray of light has traveled 0.866c in 0.866 seconds, so also the speed of light, the delay factor is 0.866, converted into the faster second of observer B this would be 1 second. So just by comparing the clocks this would not be enough, in the train car only 1 fast second has passed (or 0.866 slower second) and outside the train car 1.5 faster second. The beginning of the ray of light is seen by observer B at 1.5c, the total distance travelled should be at 0.75c + 0.866c = 1.616c for observer B, but because observer B sees length contraction, he still sees the ray of light at 1.5c. These moments are simultaneous for both observer A and B. I had shown with drawings (own theory, see chapter 5 and web archive) that it can only be correct if matter shrinks in all directions and takes the current time delay factor squared (which is also the shrinkage factor, later I will explain it exactly), so one must calculate all numbers with the Lorentz transformation and multiply again by the current delay factor. Why does one not come out of that mathematically, because in my opinion the units are shrinking and that cannot roll out of the formulas, because it is also an additional fact. So the unit of time shrinks (or increased duration), and the length unit shrinks, so the train car and a measuring rod taken with it and light shrink in all directions. So there is no longer a length contraction, but a shrinking in all directions, therefore observer A and B both see the beginning of the ray of light converted at 1.5c, for observer A the numbers are still correct as it measures but has no idea of shrinking units. Do not think that 0.75 is always half, e.g. when the speed of the train car is 0.25c, the numbers are clearly different. This way you can also create a ray of light in the train car the other way around, so from right to left. It also goes in the same time (duration). You can calculate that then the moments of simultaneity for observer B are at 0.75c and 0.5c, this is a bit more difficult to imagine (due to different directions) but is mathematically correct. At the front of the train car, the points of simultaneity are different, but still 1 fast second has passed in the train car. E.g. in front, after 0.866 slow seconds their is simultaneity along the railway with 1 fast second at a distance of 0.5c. See figure 2 below, later I show something else with figure 1. In that other point was simultaneity only after 1.5 fast seconds. Another brief example, but now of an object. If observer B were to move a ball at a speed of 0.75c along the railway line, observer A would observe it at a speed of 0.4c. But even if observer A were to move a ball in the train car at speed 0.4c, observer B would observe it at a speed of 0.75c, so just the other way around. Then you might think, if observer A does not let the ball move himself but perceives the ball from B the same, is the explanation really opposition, because there is no ball moving at A? Then the concept of duration comes into play, the duration associated with his slow second (300,000km of light) is greater than the smaller duration at B, so A can perceive more of B in its duration but no more than that, it seems as if the images of B come across as packed together. And that longer duration is caused precisely by that opposition!
  • Can you now conclude in retrospect that there is 1 time (duration) in nature with which all events in the universe can be recorded in chronological order? Yes, I am inclined to say that there is a universal time (duration), but we do not know. We can only record all events around us in our own time (duration) from our own (local) time (duration) on Earth, so relatively speaking. Similarly, possibly from other planets at different speeds through space, conversions will be difficult to capture simultaneity or impossible due to the absence of all the facts. But times are only different if the speed differences between objects (e.g. planets) are very large, and I think that's not too bad, so time (duration) is roughly the same, so to speak. Only where the energy density is high as in a black hole etc. will this be different. When I see my own example with observer A and B, I see that the photon (beginning ray of light) has in fact spatially traveled the same path for both, but observer A does not experience this. So there is only 1 distance travelled for the photon, and that is 1.5c. Suppose that at the beginning of the Big Bang a first ray of light has arisen, this also includes a certain time (duration), and the length of this ray of light can be converted to this universal time (duration). In this way, one can record every event in the universe in this universal time (duration). Time (duration) is encapsulated in space. But it has only meaning since the beginning of the Big Bang!
  • First, we recorded the duration of a whole day in a mechanical clock and called it time (duration). Later in an atomic clock that was even more precise. We discovered that in our unit 1 second the light traveled a certain way (300,000km). We discovered that if we tested this again in motion, the clock was also in motion, the clock ran slower but that at exactly 1 whole slower second, the light had traveled the same way again (so again 300,000km). So we learned that the opposition for all types of movements (e.g. in a clock) just like light, is the same around / on an object, all those movements have positive energy as a common factor. So light can also be used as a clock. We also learned that a string of light spatially for various observers in motion travels the same way but is simultaneously observed shorter because the (local) time goes slower (or by more opposition to the negative energy in space). So through a detour, time (duration) is actually the way that an amount of light in space has traveled simultaneously (or in a light clock).
  • Furthermore, I would like to explain some things that are still in my memory. So I think that positive energies attract each other, so light can also be deflected at the Sun, because only so much positive energy has a hold on light particles. For example, that light should light up during deflection because it is temporarily given extra positive energy. Gravitational waves are escaped positive energies, which when passing by can temporarily increase the positive energy of matter, making time slower (or increased duration) and matter shrinking. In experiments where the temperature approaches 0 degrees Kelvin, one sometimes sees the same particle in several places at the same time, this also has to do with local timelessness in my opinion. It is thought that quanta (smallest amounts) exist in nature, just as a photon of light is the smallest positive energy package. Similarly, with movements, it is thought that there are smallest distances. This then means that an object moves from location to location and therefore no continuous movement. Depending on speed, it remains in a location for a while and then, according to my own thought, timelessly to the next location. Such a location could be a transparent particle of negative energy. I think also (forgot reasoning, not at all, see chapter 5 and web archive) that if one could slow down an object with a rocket in the direction of the Big Bang, so the opposite direction, one ends up with a photon (light particle), all other positive energy is converted in one way or another along the way.
  • (January 2024) I've been working on this topic for years now and suddenly think that shrinkage of matter is already present in the basic theory, the formulas remain the same but you have to look at it differently (as I think). Therefore, I can now also understand that matter shrinks in gravitational waves (has already been demonstrated), it must already be present in the basic theory. Length contraction is not something visual, but real shrinkage. I think it works like this. See Figure 3 below. Let me take the moving train carriage as an example. When this train car is stationary, you have a coordinate system for locations and time. When the train car is in motion, the entire coordinate system with all the objects in it shrinks, including the train car itself. So length units and units of time also shrink. This is already included in the Lorentz transformation formulas that present the new locations and times for simultaneity compared to standstill, but these values are expressed in the shrinking new units. Everything shrinks with the shrinkage factor 1 - (v2 / c2), so the new γ = (1 / 1 - (v2 / c2). If we calculate the length contraction, it corresponds to that shrinkage factor. Both the unit of length and the unit of time shrink by 1 - (v2 / c2), so, in the example, the new units are 0.75 meters and 0.75 seconds. And our 1 second has now become 0.75 seconds and is therefore the new unit of time in motion, so if 1.333 new units of time have passed, only 1 slow second has passed, so time slows down with new units of time. The location and time for the photon in the moving train car are both 1.0 (expressed in s and c), but that is in the new units. The photon is in the old units at 1.0 x 0.75 = 0.75, i.e. equal for observer B outside the train car. But observer A just measures 1.0 because he has no knowledge of shrinkage. For a vertical ray of light, this is also the same at 0.5c and 1s. This follows exactly from the formula (1 - (v / c)).(1 + (v / c)), let a ray of light of 1c vertically reflect when stationary, so with the behavior of light rays, the shrinkage is already naturally included. You do have to shift the simultaneity vertically slightly for observer B, see later. So, the time delay factor is 1 - (v2 / c2). Horizontally it is the same but a bit more difficult to see, due to the movement of the train carriage itself, vertically there is no extra movement.
  • Having explained all the things above now, I am going to clarify a few more points for the sake of completeness. 1) First of all, the forumule 1 - (v2 / c2), why doesn't it need to be compensated for shrinkage, because I don't think it contains any shrinking variables. If one creates a vertical ray of light in the train car in my example above on the far left, then one gets the infamous triangle from which Lorentz could simply calculate the time delay factor without having any idea what this meant, Einstein did. See Figure 1 below. In a horizontal direction I reasoned my shrinkage factor, so observer A and B saw a photon at the same location. That must therefore be made correct vertically. All units in and around the train car shrink both time (duration) and length units. By the way: for observer A in the train car, the vertical and horizontal rays of light are simultaneous after 0.75 slow seconds, for observer B the vertical ray of light is simultaneous after 1 (fast) second, and the horizontal ray of light only after 1.5 (fast) seconds. I think I was possibly able to think of something (after a long time) how vertical shrinkage can also be achieved (at least the formulas are correct). If one shrinks the infamous triangle in Figure 1 with the current time delay factor, 0.75 seconds still coincides with 0.5c and 1 fast second along the rails. This is repeated again with a smaller triangle at 0.5c, on half of the oblique side. Then one sees the red shrunken triangles. It is striking that they always start a little later than the origin, this is apparently a kind of delay to achieve simultaneity in the vertical direction (compensation for horizontal shrinkage). We know that there are differences between the direction of motion v and perpendicular to the direction of motion v, if we accept length contraction in the direction of motion v, we can make it correct with perpendicular to the direction of motion v without length contraction, both the same time delay factor. As I reason, it is correct with photons in the horizontal direction of motion v, so a greater length contraction. But then again it doesn't match perpendicular to the direction of motion v. That direction is actually also more vague, what effects does a direction perpendicular to the direction of motion have at a very high speed in space. I would think of a slowdown in simultaneity. So observer B only sees the shrinkage vertical ray of light from (1 - √(1 - (v2 / c2))) x (distance travelled by the railway carriage) go up later at the speed of light than from 0 originally. Then we have a larger time delay factor and also vertical length contraction which is in fact a shrinkage factor, that an object shrinks is also more difficult to observe than length contraction in 1 direction. Observer B sees the photon according to the black line that follows the delayed time in a vertical direction. The total length of this line is at 0.75 second, only 0.90c, while the simultaneity coincides with the 1 second in horizontal direction as it should. That's because of those extra delays, so the photon on the black line has traveled a smaller distance, but the local speed is still the speed of light. In nature, anything is possible without really understanding it. The unchanged Lorentz transformation formulas were : x' = γ . (x - v.t) and t' = γ . (t - (v.x/c2)) and vice versa x = γ . (x' + v.t') and t = γ . (t' + (v.x'/c2)). The modified Lorentz transformation formulas have been updated with the new γ = (1 / 1 - (v2 / c2) : x' = γ . (x - v.t) and t' = γ . (t - (v.x/c2)) and vice versa x = x' + v.t' and t = t' + (v.x'/c2), the length contraction or shrinkage factor remain mathematically the same with the new γ. The formulas for the Lorentz transformation in our time and length units then become: leave γ out, so x' = (x - v.t) and t' = (t - (v.x/c2)) and vice versa x = x' + v.t' en t = t' + (v.x'/c2). So, this formula is in our time and length units, e.g. observer A in the moving train car (also shrunk by 1 - (v2 / c2)) measures the time and length in shrinkage units of 1 - (v2 / c2) of which he has no knowledge, and the number of units are the same as before the shrinkage, so 1 - (v2 / c2) number of units less than observer B measures in his own units. So both time and length undergo a shrinkage by a factor of 1 - (v2 / c2) in our units. The formula in the vertical direction for y is about the same for simultaneity (for x' = 0, y' = γ . y, t'y = t' for which y = x - v.t etc.), so an object shrinks in both or all directions. Take, for example, a ruler in the moving train carriage, the entire ruler shrinks and so do the units, both by 1 - (v2 / c2), so in our units it shrinks completely by 1 - (v2 / c2). I still wonder how the Lorentz triangle came about with a time delay of 0.866. I am inclined to say (as I think) by chance, because you don't know everything afterwards (again, as I think). If you look at the existing transformation formula, you can clearly see with γ that there is a conversion taking place in shrinking units, for example x' = γ . (x - v.t) for 1 / γ. This is also the case with t'. The photon is at 0.75c in our units, but in the moving system for the observer at 0.866 new units if the units are also 0.866c, i.e. at 0.75c (0.866 x 0.866) in our units. But that 0.866 is considered as 0.866c as in that Lorentz triangle and with length contraction you see it at 0.75c. But because no length contraction is assumed vertically, the units are not shrunk there, and the length is actually 0.866c. Because I think the time delay formula 1 - (v2 / c2) is, I end up with shrunken units of 1 - (v2 / c2) and the outcome in the moving system is only 1 unit in this example and a larger length contraction which is the shrinkage factor, but in both directions. By shifting the simultaneity in the vertical direction slightly for an observer B, he still sees the known Lorentz triangle in this example, but it is shrunk with a oblique side of 0.866 and an adjacent side of 0.75. Anyway, I find my solution more logical, it doesn't seem logical to me that the appearance of something distorts in one direction, but practice will have to show it, for example with gravitational waves, is the shrinkage in both directions? It is also argued that length contraction (or shrinkage in my case) gives contradictions in the theory, but that is because they think that the theory of relativity only has to do with motions while I think with increasing energy. If B is in motion relative to A, the theory assumes that A is in motion relative to B, and even with the Big Bang, that's not the case. One of the two is really in motion relative to the other, there is only one where the energy increases the most and where time therefore passes more slowly. On the Earth this is always clear, everything that moves in relation to the Earth gets more energy. If you see the different units in length and time, you can start thinking, what is a unit at a clock in the moving system? Actually, it doesn't matter how they solve it there, what matters is that the speed of light is always measured in comparison, even if they have a random unit there and the distance traveled by light is a different number per unit, it remains the same speed of light when converted. Does a different time delay make a difference, so it doesn't matter which time delay, so whether it's 0.866 or 0.75 in the example? If you take 0.866 with shrinking units, something isn't right. In the stationary system, you measure that something is 1c long by means of a laser beam (is light) that measures 1c. In the moving system, you would first measure 0.866c with a laser beam because you have no knowledge of shrinking units, but what you measure then becomes smaller through communication. If you take 0.75 with shrinking units (which also follows from the new time delay formula), you simply measure 1c, so you measure the same thing through communication. So there is only 1 shrinking unit where you measure the same thing over and over again. But isn't time delay measured in experiments? True, but in our units. If one were to adopt those units WITHOUT shrinkage in the moving system, for example on another planet, by chance in their choice, then at 0.75 in those units they think the light would have traveled a path of 1.333 more, but that is still the speed of light in our system when converted. I think the following explanation for this example is the best provisional one to explain this short path of 0.90c. For vertical movements, it takes 0.1 seconds to compensate for the horizontal shrinkage (this goes in steps with the red triangles, some integral will come to 0.1 second I think). As a result, the black line is only 0.90c, with measurements for the speed of light one must take into account the loss of 0.1 second (in this case, in fact it is still 1c long but partially visible, the initial piece is not shown). As noted earlier, it doesn't matter who actually makes something move, the other person sees it with simultaneity as if he himself makes something move. So if observer B makes a photon move across the black line, he sees the photon after 1 second on the black cross in figure 1. Observer A sees this photon as follows. If observer A makes a photon move vertically, then simultaneity is achieved for both observers at 0.90c and 0.75c, due to the loss of 0.1 second, observer B will not see the starting piece. As noted earlier, time is the length of the path traveled of light, so that 0.90c string of light will always be seen by observer B as 0.90 seconds. This transformation has now become a possibility, variants will probably still be found. At the moment, the theory of relativity does not yet fit completely into quantum mechanics. The speeds must also be very high if all this is to be tested properly. Perhaps in the future this will be possible from the moon by allowing lightweight robots to move through space at considerable speeds (close to the speed of light). 2) Observer A sees movements at observer B the same as if they were to take place in the train car due to the fact of the time delay (or longer duration) and shrinkage of time (duration) and length units, these observations are then purely visual, e.g. a moving measuring rod at observer B, if observer A grabs that measuring rod from the air, then it really shrinks. 3) The theory of relativity is based on the fact that the speed of light is always measured the same during movement. But if you assume that everyone in motion sees a photon spatially in the same location, you could also follow that time passes slower (or duration longer). 4) That everyone in motion measures the speed of light the same in a fast or slow second, only applies as long as everything remains in motion, standstill compared to the Big Bang is not possible. The first ray of light from the Big Bang belonged to a certain universal time (duration) but we do not know this. We do know these about our Earth and use them to record all events relatively. 5) If something really moves, time really slows down and real shrinking takes place, or with increased energy. A real movement is movement compared to the Big Bang. If a gravitational wave temporarily shrinks matter through temporarily increased energy (and temporarily slows down local time), that is also a real shrinking. Observers in motion see these shrinking's or time delays slightly differently, but that is purely visual, the numbers are the same as they would be with real movements, so what is observed actually moves. Therefore, those perceived energies are also purely visual, only with the real movements is the energy real. 6) So in my example the time runs slower in the train car, outside the train car it is 1 second and in the train car 0.75 second (with shrinkage, without 0.866 second)). So if your clock outside the train car indicates 1 second, the clock in the train car indicates 0.75 seconds. But this is different from simultaneity. In motions of objects C and D, each point of C is simultaneous with exactly one point in D, and all those points are different. On the objects C and D themselves, all points are simultaneous, in each point the clock runs the same (the rhythm of the clock). If you let light reflect between those points, then the time it takes is exactly the same as the time back. In motion, those times are no longer the same because the paths of light traveled are shorter or longer back and forth. 7) My reasoning about shrinkage does not go against length contraction because length contraction has never been demonstrated in practice (also difficult with those high speeds or increased energy, timedilation has been demonstrated)! Shrinkage has been demonstrated with gravitational waves due to temporarily increased energy.

Another thought about our existence

i) All the sources already mentioned consulted and supplemented with some thoughts of my own

Actually, a new thought is the real reason that I have brought both websites to life, to ventilate this thought among interested parties, you can not prove everything but it can give inspirations for new thoughts.

As a boy I used to walk a lot on the heath, thought a lot about everything (must have been stored in the genes, because my father did that too, who predicted all the environmental problem in the 70s), and often thought everything is really around me or do we think that.

One thing is clear, we know nothing or almost little, we have no idea of our own existence. And the things that we do know, that has taken 6 million years, so that has not gone fast and the result is not great when we see how we interact with each other in the world today, and that after 6 million years. An incredibly long time.

But yes, whether everything is real or not, actually it doesn't matter, it's about how we experience this, and that's the same in both cases.

Yet in the last 10 years it has become clear to me that energy is an elusive thing, actually fictitious, our entire existence stands or falls with energy, if you take that energy away in 1 time, then our entire existence has disappeared in 1 flash.

So energy is, as it were, a mathematical variable that makes our entire existence possible viewed in a mathematical model.

In a mathematical model, anything is possible as long as it is mathematically correct, so concepts such as timelessness, particles, light waves, forces, big bang, curved space, fourth dimension, parallel worlds / spaces etc. There's nothing really to understand, it's just pure math. When do you think you understand something, if it looks like something you already know, but in fact you don't really understand that also.

That gives me the idea that this mathematical model is in fact the Big Bang, it originated out of nowhere, and it contains mathematical submodels in the form of particles, the positive energy, and transparent particles, the negative energy, the first presented as matter and light, and the second as space. This has been the foundation from which everything has evolved. Using probability functions, you could explain it as a coincidence, but that is absolutely not 100% certain.

We humans also originated in this, as mathematical sub-models from this evolutionary process. Whether this is driven from the outside is a debate among us.

But the difference between real and not real, by which I mean, that in our three-dimensional submodel that we experience, something has arisen in every location, a tree, plant, stone, rest of dinosaur, light wave, or just space etc. but purely mathematically, by the laws of nature such as seeing, forces etc. that are also purely mathematical, we perceive those things, but in fact they do not exist as we think about everything around us, for example, we see a stone floating in the universe, but only exists mathematically. And what is, for example, the hardness of matter? Due to the mathematical composition of the mathematical particle models and possibly additional mathematics, it is not transparent and therefore feels hard, so also when we are on earth etc. Physics is pure mathematics, and only with mathematics do we try to explain everything. So physics is just the search for mathematics. E.g. with the mathematics found, we have discovered waves and we have TV, wireless communication etc. Perhaps this makes it even clearer: if all observers are no longer there, i.e. all living beings, then everything around us no longer exists, because there are no more observers!

In this way, the Big Bang can also be imagined more logically, it is not something like large amounts of ready-made material (or in gaseous form) that has come out of nowhere. With this last representation it must have existed forever, e.g. recycled from a black hole, but that reasoning is too simple and much more illogical (I think), everything must have a certain reason.

Some physicists think that the universe can be a hologram, which is also in line with the idea of ​​a mathematical model. Artificial intelligence or AI or our brain by means of neural networks (see section 3a) can also be mathematical submodels. Also that consciousness continues to exist after death (see section 3b), could be explained as a mathematical submodel separated from the body. For example, the fourth dimension (see section 3c) can also simply be a mathematical submodel. But all this is of course very complex mathematics, the mathematics that we master is only a very small modest part of it.

Of course, the question arises as to how life can arise from mathematics alone. The mathematics we use in textbooks are parts of the whole, e.g. lines, circles and other geometric figures that can intersect, algebra to calculate e.g. intersections etc. But the Big Bang also set mathematics in motion using the mysterious parameter energy. Particles are mathematical submodels, light is also a mathematical submodel with parameters that determine that it can only represent mathematical light, combinations of particles determine whether this light can travel right through those particles or whether it is reflected. You could say but this is physics, I would say it is mathematics in motion using the mysterious parameter energy that imposes extra restrictions on that mathematics, so a level higher, but it remains mathematics. Whether you consider those combinations of energies as matter or as pure mathematics, it makes no difference to that mathematics, we are a part of it in the form of a sub-model. And because life has already originated as well as neural networks etc., this is possible in our mathematical model. For now, these are all starting thoughts of course ..

So yes, I think there must be something because it's so incredibly clever, but of course you don't know what that should be, and the meaning of it. Unfortunately, after 6 million years, this system has only produced a kind of lunatics with blind followers, and it will continue to do so for the time being, although every century something advances, but excruciatingly slowly.

For me, death will be exciting, I am not afraid of it (painless please), what is the next phase of this great mystery (hopefully backwardness will be a thing of the past there, remark because of my other topic power of veto)?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) (added in March 2024)

i) Sources consulted are the book "Fundamentals of Neural Networks (Architectures, Algorithms, and Applications)" by L.F., Wiki miscellaneous information, some scientific reports, and supplemented with some thoughts of my own

First of all, I will briefly explain in my own words how people think that a biological (human / animal) neuron (or nerve cell) works and with that knowledge the idea of artificial neural networks (AI) originated. Everything is easy to find on the internet for more details.

First, a little introduction. Every human cell contains DNA, and you have different types of cells, a biological neuron is a nerve cell and therefore also contains DNA, there are as many biological neurons as glial cells and the latter take care of the biological neurons, e.g. keep everything clean, deliver food etc. DNA builds the body so also the brain, DNA is the same for all people but 11 parts together are unique per person, hence, DNA is our fingerprint. DNA is duplicated in cells and you could say that DNA is also a kind of memory for evolution (e.g. the hereditary traits), but more to regulate all the little things in our body that together build our large body. The brain is used to store our thoughts but also to regulate the bigger things in our body such as controlling our body parts, think of walking for example, but walking must also be learned. It is thought that Einstein had multiple glial cells per biological neuron and that is why his brain functioned so well.

A human being has 86 billion biological neurons in his brain. A biological neuron receives nerve impulses (electric, but chemically generated) from other biological neurons as input and, with the right input, gives off 1 nerve impulse as output to other biological neurons or as an end station a part of your body via the nerve pathways. In adulthood, an average biological neuron can have about 7,500 connections with other biological neurons, if one is young, as many as 15,000 connections, but over the years less important things take on less detail, so fewer connections are needed. So biological neuron networks are constantly changing, e.g. connections are created but can also disappear, so what we like to see in Alien movies actually happens in our own brain. Biological neurons also make up memory. So the memory is not something special, so a biological neuron transmits nerve impulses and is also the memory. One of the many inputs of a biological neuron can come from another biological neuron or from a body part, as can the one output of a biological neuron. So biological neurons can be used to think, to store thoughts, to learn and store what has been learned, to store events or to control a body part, think for example of a memory that makes you feel good and evokes images, so what processes all that causes in your body controlled by biological neurons.

So an average biological neuron can have about 7,500 connections with other biological neurons. These connections are called synapses and have the property of strengthening or weakening incoming nerve impulses, if a minimal total net nerve impuls comes through from those connections (>= 1) a nerve impulse is released by the biological neuron, otherwise nothing happens. These synapses make up the memory. An unused biological neuron cannot fire (give off a nerve impulse) because that neuron has not yet been incorporated into a network, during events such as thoughts, experiences, learning, etc., networks of neurons are created.

You can represent these nerve impulses as 0 and 1, whether or not a signal of a certain strength, they only acquire meaning in connection with the parts of the brain that exchange information with those nerve impulses (coding / decoding). In this way, a biological neuron can receive a combination of 0 and 1 (e.g. 0100111010 via 10 connections) so that those synapses are set in such a way that learning or event that a net nerve impuls is given off, or not. So in this way, those synapses act like memory. Therefore, those synapses have plastic properties, so after some time that plasticity disappears. If we have stored something in our memory in this way, then a permanent network of neurons has been created, when the first neurons are later stimulated again with the right nerve impulses, then what we have learned or the memory of an event is retrieved.

It might also be enlightening to give a small and simple example of how a biological neuron works. This gives a better insight into the whole. Suppose that you use two connections (input) for a biological neuron, and that biological neuron only has to emit a nerve impulse (output) if a nerve impulse also enters through those two connections (from other neurons). This is technically a so-called AND gate in technical circuits. A nerve impulse represents a 1, otherwise a 0 (no nerve impulse is issued). So the biological neuron has to give off a nerve impulse only for 1 and 1, but NOT for 1 and 0, 0 and 1, 0 and 0. Then the following mathematical equation will suffice : if ((s1 . i1) + (s2 . i2)) >= 1, than emit a nerve impulse, otherwise not. Here i1 and i2 are the values 0 or 1 for the two connections (input), s1 and s2 are the set values 0.5 for the biological synapses (which strengthen / weaken a nerve impulse), the mathematical equation can then be written as (0.5 . i1 + 0.5 . i2) >= 1. Now check all the values for i1 and i2, and it turns out that only when both are 1, the biological neuron emits a nerve impulse. The two biological synapses with set values 0.5 now act as memory for the four combinations of 0 and 1 (and results, output). A technical OR gate with the same combinations may NOT emit a nerve impulse for the combination 0 and 0. The mathematical equation can then be written as (i1 + i2) >= 1. The biological synapses then have set values 1.

And as with everything, people have been working on subjects for 100 years. Artificial neural networks have been around for at least 100 years, at first simple and now more complex. It requires a lot of math and often this ends in limitations, but in our real brains it all runs flawlessly. But artificial neural networks are pure mathematics (by connecting artificial neurons and to calculate the values for artificial synapses) and are simply recorded in programmed code, just like other programs in computers. They are therefore programming techniques that can program problems that would otherwise be much more complex or even impossible, such as license plate recognition or facial recognition. And it also works if there is a certain amount of contamination in the data delivery, e.g. a camera with a dirty lens or a license plate with mud (or damaged characters). This fault tolerance also works in our biological neural networks.

According to a book read about artificial neural networks (AI) until 1995, the following artificial neural networks have already been developed (often consisting of several layers of artificial neurons):

  • recognizing patterns (compare with how the brain recognizes numbers, letters, handwriting, etc.)
  • finding treatments / medicines for diseases (i.e. the network searches for a disease based on the symptoms entered)
  • producing speech (compare with the brain how words should be pronounced in a given context, new words and pronunciation can be read by the network)
  • recognizing speech (compare to how the brain can recognize speech and record it on paper)
  • assessing requested mortgages (using data provided to the network, making an assessment of whether a mortgage can be granted in connection with risk analyses)

In the last 30 years all this will have improved a lot and of course new networks will have been designed, but I don't know, AI is personally not my area of interest now that I know more about it, and see this more as a topic / technique for the next generation.

As with other developments, a human being can misuse anything. That's how we developed and used the atomic bomb, that's how armies will be developed with robot soldiers (simply machines), we are who we are. Fortunately, we only live for a short time, so you never have to experience that madness for long. No matter how long we are in this world, we will never turn it into a paradise with our finds. But I don't believe that a human being can ever completely simulate the brain, they are really too complex for that and we can never completely unravel them. We are and remain mysterious beings (but with a big ego) in a mysterious world / space.

But this topic shows again that everything is mathematics. If everything "really" exists, then there is a lot of coincidence that our very complicated brains came into being this way (actually impossible, but you can also say that about the structure of our space and matter)!

Some more collected knowledge and some summary thoughts of my own for myself and others:
  • In 1949 it was discovered in animals that if 2 connected biological neurons fire at the same time, so a biological neuron (presynaptic neuron) that is the input of another biological neuron (postsynaptic neuron) that also fires at the same time, that thickens the synapse of that connection (so incoming nerve impulse is strengthened), since then, nothing has been discovered I thought. But later it turned out that time was also important. If the presynaptic neuron fires just in front of the postsynaptic neuron, the connection is strengthened, meaning that the postsynaptic neuron can now be more easily activated by presynaptic stimulation. However, if the presynaptic neuron fires just after the postsynaptic neuron, the connection is weakened, which means the postsynaptic neuron is more difficult to activate. If the two neurons actually fire simultaneously, the strength of their connection does not change. Found another interesting document that reflects everything about the current knowledge of biological synapses, that remains a black box for the time being (""). However, I found this sentence interesting: This observation suggests that the postsynaptic neuron "instructs" the short-term plasticity of the presynaptic neuron. Now I'm going to better understand artificial neural networks. Perhaps the first artificial neural networks long ago assumed certain workings of the biological neurons, but that this was also observed later, although the how is still a black box. So that's my confirmation that artificial neural networks are a representation of our brains, but the how we set ourselves is therefore simpler.
  • So it follows from the above that a biological neuron can fire when it transmits a 0, but because it fires later than the receiving biological neuron, this does not contribute and can be considered a 0. So you would think that a biological neuron would always fire, but the timing would dictate whether it should be a 0 or 1. But it could also be that if it represents a 0, the biological neuron may be firing too late or not. Also, if they fire simultaneously, it could be either a 0 or 1, the synapses are already set up for the combinations and just let a certain valid combination through.
  • At first I thought a possibility would be that a biological neuron always fires, and also remembers the net nerve impuls in an unknown way and the next time only fires when the same net nerve impuls is reached, so only allows 1 combination, but that thought gets stuck in a neural network. It is therefore inevitable that multiple combinations cause a biological neuron to fire, and thus more combinations can be remembered in the many synapses. So the mystery remains how a biological neuron knows its output, i.e. what net nerve impuls should be generated through its many synapses. And if the output of a biological neuron is connected to the input of multiple biological neurons, it needs to know the output of each connected biological neuron. In the case of artificial neural networks, we have this prior knowledge and we can achieve it through mathematics (but not always). So a lot of calculations have to be done in the brain to realize this through mathematics, but our body does everything through substances here and there and doesn't really contain a scientific calculator.
  • A synapse cleft is an open space separated between both biological neurons. In order to contribute to the net nerve impulse, so-called neurotransmitters (molecules) are transferred to the other side in the cleft of each synapse, so from the presynaptic biological neuron to the postsynaptic biological neuron, the postsynaptic biological neuron has so-called receptors that receive the neurotransmitters and in this way a net nerve impulse can be built up through the many synapses. Now I have also read in a research report that the postsynaptic biological neuron can regulate this number of receptors, maybe (but I don't know for sure) to weaken or strengthen a net nerve impulse e.g. it is clear that it should be a 1 as output but that due to circumstances the nerve impulse is just too weak to fire, or e.g. that the nerve impulse becomes too strong.
  • Also read somewhere in a research report, that the axon (output) of a biological neuron can sometimes be a meter long if it has to be connected to a body part somewhere. Certain molecules in the body take the axon in tow and find their way (left, right, straight ahead, etc.) to the body part, e.g. a muscle. You would then start to think that everything in the body has an identification and that even neurons have an identification. Which brings me to a thought of how the output could be known in advance in the synapses (i.e. is just a thought that doesn't have to be true at all), for a certain combination of 0 and 1 that goes to different biological neurons at the same time but with a different output. Suppose you have a combination of 0 and 1 and in addition a second combination of the output of 0 and 1 for different biological neurons where the sequence indicates neuron 1, neuron 2 etc. If you were to include the second combination in every 0 and 1 of the first combination, it could be encoded in the nerve impulse, which is a normal signal with an amplitude associated with any 0 or 1 of the first combination (0 could possibly belong to a weak nerve impulse). Then you can have the values (or increase value) calculated by the synapses themselves for each connected biological neuron because the output (0 or 1) of all connected neurons is processed in that nerve impulse but needs to be decoded. This is also the case for the next layer of biological neurons, so the output must be known in advance, or supplemented, e.g. if it goes live immediately while thinking. I wonder if a biological neuron in the middle of a biological neural network can be approached separately from the outside for an update of the synapses, or if only a biological neuron can be stimulated by other connected biological neurons. If the latter is true, the whole pattern of combinations will have to be determined in advance in the brain before it can be stored in a network of biological neurons, first those combinations will be carried out in disconnected neurons (I think) so that the synapses can adjust themselves correctly with all the data that is provided in the combinations. In this way, layer by layer is connected to each other. So this was a thought, but it shows how it could be done.
  • So I would think that there is a thought first, and that it is only stored later, so that the brain can calculate what the values of the synapses should be when recording and possibly record the thought by working from back to front. But because this same problem occurs when assembling the unstored thought via biological neurons, I would think that our black box must be the consciousness that could be outside the brain, so an AI machine can never get a consciousness, it remains a machine. And both animals and humans can have consciousness outside of the brain. Anyway, that's all there is to think of for the time being. It's like the Big Bang, the beginning is incomprehensible. I can now understand that there is a part of scientists who argue that consciousness lies outside the brain where e.g. our thoughts also originate and are stored, possibly only the brain serves to connect our thoughts (also stored in the brain) to the body just like DNA is connected to our body, I am curious about my next topic 3b later.
  • AI is therefore created by humans and is therefore simply a tool to get certain things done automatically that is not possible with the usual programming methods. It can also be used to make a robot function, so a kind of handy machine, but it will absolutely not be a human being with a consciousness ever. We like to exaggerate, have been in the world for 6 million years and get a bigger and bigger ego when we know a little more. I personally didn't believe in the self-driving car in busy city traffic either (see old text in my archive) and 10 years are always added for development. A person's complex brain can oversee more to prevent accidents, a few sensors can't compete with that. I see AI more for replacing repetitive boring work, the rest is mostly science fiction (for now).
  • My personal conclusion: If you do math to set the biological synapses for various combinations of 0 and 1 associated with a given event, you will soon find out that every problem has its own solutions mathematically (just like artificial neural networks). But I am personally convinced that it should work more simply in the brain (which is something that came about naturally) than in artificial neural networks. We got the idea of artificial neural networks from the brain and developed it in our own way with a lot of math. I've been working for a while on the problem for a so-called XOR gate that can only be solved in artificial neural networks via a so-called Mandaline network, which includes multiple artificial neurons. I have the idea (true or false) that in 1 biological neuron every group of combinations can be stored and that there are only nerve impulses that represent a 1 (so always the same signal), and no nerve impulse represents a 0, and negative values do not occur. I think that a value of 1 should always be added to a combination, if a combination cannot be reconciled in the group. So there must always be an extra biological synapse for this purpose (if it receives a 0 then it does not contribute to the total net nerve impulse, with a 1 the total net nerve impulse of at least 1 is achieved). In the examples above with AND or OR gate, no 1 needs to be added, no additional biological synapse needs to be set. But an XOR gate has a tricky combination 1 and 1 that has to become 0. The combinations for an XOR gate are: 1 and 1, 0 and 0, should become 0, 1 and 0, 0 and 1, should become 1. This can be solved by giving an extra biological synapse a 1 for the combinations 1 and 0, 0 and 1. The mathematical equation is then: (0.4 . i1 + 0.4 . i2 + 0.6 . i3) >= 1.
    I'm not going to think about it anymore and move on to other topics. People have been trying to solve this for 100 years and no one has come up with it yet, so it must be complicated. What a coincidence in nature ..
  • Scientists are already able to make a series of brain cells receptive with certain chemicals, just as the brain does, for an initial event that will take place and then be stored in those brain cells. If those brain cells are stimulated again later with the right nerve impulses, that event or the memory of that event happens again.

Life or consciousness after death (added in July 2024)

i) Sources consulted are the book "Consciousness Beyond Life (The Science of the Near-Death Experience)" by P.v.L., Wiki miscellaneous information, some scientific reports, and supplemented with some own thoughts

Interesting book to read about the NDE, the author has also delved a lot into other sciences such as quantum mechanics to try to find explanations.

I myself have also experienced something special (only time in my life), not an NDE, but also something I will never forget. If you read in my archive you will see a comment made about an English scientist shortly after his death, where it gnawed at me, should I leave that comment out or not, I left it anyway. After about 1 week during a deep sleep I heard a loud doorbell (ding dong) in my brain that woke me up, in front of me I saw a large sharp image of that scientist looking at me, and then that image slowly faded away until it disappeared again. Something like that can come from the subconscious, I thought, from a kind of guilt, but if a scientist could make contact in some way, then this scientist had the right papers, because he was very much concerned with coexisting (parallel) worlds / spaces.

In my own archive I have also spent a lot of time working on an invisible space that I eventually called the fourth dimension, see topic 3c. Because I connect the timeless with light, within a light wave or electromagnetic wave time is 0 or timeless according to my thoughts, consciousness could well be in the fourth dimension (where in infinite parts there need be no time and no space as we know it, also, a third dimension with space and time could overlap at the same time with a third dimension without space and time, so the visible and invisible space are intertwined) and communicate with the brain via electromagnetic waves (light), a kind of entanglement like between two light particles (it is an incipient discovery, see topic 3c), but now between neurons and directly connected to the fourth dimension. In this way, neurons could also be controlled from the fourth dimension or our consciousness. The body is needed to visualize thoughts and to actually feel feelings. After this, I'm going to study quantum mechanics in detail and I'm curious to see if I can develop my own ideas better.

I'm always surprised that an average scientist doesn't believe in anything (I'm not talking about the author of the book). A scientist should see how terribly peculiar the world is, the scientist searches further and further with a high enthusiasm but only does this to spend his time pleasantly, after that dead is dead forever. Einstein was not like that, he did not literally believe in a person like God, but he did feel the mystique of existence as a question mark for most of us. Also we must not forget, we do have brains, but they may be limited so that we can only reach a limited level with our thoughts, we are not above nature but are a part of it, nature allows us to think to a certain level.

As a senior, you have more time to think about everything more deeply. Normally you are busy with so many things as a kind of automaton / robot, and in the meantime the short life goes by very quickly. If I really thought that life has no purpose at all, I wouldn't want to live a minute longer, everything would have 0% meaning no matter what you do. I can't imagine that everything around us just came into existence out of nothing and of itself and is so intelligently put together. I can understand that my level of thinking is limited and therefore cannot understand it, I am part of nature but not above it, so it is not the other way around. Therefore, it is just a matter of waiting to see what will literally happen after death. Of course, I also have constant doubts, because no matter how intelligent everything is, I don't find that in my fellow human beings, generation after generation. Man remains the same century after century (for 6 million years) and is constantly waging war and still does not see the absurdity of his actions. Is unable to break that pattern, is selfish and greedy, is cowardly, aggressive, untrustworthy and uncaring, is easy to manipulate, never has enough and does not see the limits of nature, is unable to create a better world for each other, is hypocritical and sees only false injustices. Why should such a being be rewarded, is this life perhaps a learning experience for a sequel, but why? For the time being, I'm just assuming that I don't have the level to understand it and just wait and see and am glad that it's finite in this world, so that this constant irritation comes to an end ..

The fourth dimension (added in July 2024)

i) Sources consulted are the book "Dance of the Photons (Einstein, Entanglement and Quantum Teleportation)" by A.Z., Wiki miscellaneous information, some scientific reports, and supplemented with some thoughts of my own

Two similar particles (e.g. two particles of light, called photons, or two electrons, etc.) can be in contact with each other at a theoretical infinite distance from each other (e.g. a particle on Earth and a particle on Mars) and still react immediately to each other, e.g. if a property of one particle is changed (e.g. the spin of an electron i.e. the direction of rotation), the same property is also immediately changed in the other particle (so in this example it also gets the same direction of rotation, or in some experiments an opposite direction of rotation). A property of a light particle (photon) is, for example, the polarization of the light wave belonging to the light particle (e.g. think to light filters where certain light rays with a certain polarization can be filtered out, such as in sunglasses).

But this can only take place when those two particles are entangled with each other. When two particles are entangled with each other, they are in a state that they have not yet taken on a value for a property, so no property has a value, e.g. the spin of an electron has no direction yet. Only when a property takes on a value by some natural cause, or e.g. a property is measured by measuring equipment, it is then forced to take on a value, will that value of that property of the particle also be taken on in the case of the entangled particle. As soon as a particle has taken on a property in that entangled state (probably all properties have taken on a value by then), the entanglement also comes to an end. Quite logical, because the purpose of the entanglement will be to make sure that both particles have the same properties regardless of their distance.

How do you get these particles into an entangled state? For example, in the case of light particles (photons), the easiest way to do this is to split a light particle in a special crystal, creating two entangled particles. E.g. in the case of electrons, the temperature must first be lowered to around absolute zero (approximately around -273 degrees Celsius or approximately around 0 degrees Kelvin), collisions by means of entangled light particles (photons) with those electrons, create an entangled connection between those electrons independent of their distance.

This idea came theoretically from Einstein as a paradox, because he did not believe in quantum mechanics in principle. If this entangled connection could be possible, there had to be hidden parameters (variables) to explain the passing of the properties to both particles independently of their distance. I fully agree with this (according to my thoughts), there must always be an explanation, even if one is not yet able to find such an explanation, so there are always hidden parameters (variables) that one does not yet know in this case. I will come back to the proof (?) of 30 years later that these cannot exist (the so-called violation of Bell's inequality).

If you read in my archive, I've already been working on this subject. Entanglement of particles can occur when they are close to each other, but usually by means of light particles (photons) if the distances are larger or theoretically infinite. My idea is that entangled light particles create a path in which time is 0 or timeless. Because light has the greatest possible speed for us as observers. Because light has the greatest possible speed for us as observers. So inside a light wave or light particle (photon) time stands still, nothing can move anymore as seen from a light particle. The speed of light through a glass cable is only 2/3 of the speed of light outside the glass cable, but even then this remains true within that glass cable, because there is nothing that can move faster through that glass cable. In all kinds of experiments with entanglements by means of light particles, you see that these paths have crossed each other, so they have had contact with each other through those pathways. So I think that must mean something. I think entangled particles have contact with each other through the fourth dimension in which in infinite parts I don't think space and time exist, which I think only exists in the third dimension, in the world around us as we know it (also, a third dimension with space and time could be overlapped at the same time with a third dimension without space and time, thus a visible and invisible space intertwined with each other). Consider, for example, the concept of (parallel) worlds / spaces that can coexist through the fourth dimension. In mathematics, anything is possible as long as it is mathematically correct. I have already indicated in my archive with figure 0.2A how particles could be entangled in this way, as is well known, vectors (those arrows) do not have to be visual in mathematics and certainly not in a fourth dimension (that is completely unknown territory for us). The connection through the fourth dimension are in this case the hidden parameters (variables).

That nothing can travel faster than light, not even information, is still true, because such a connection in the fourth dimension is not speed, there is no space and no time. Also, if two entangled particles are in systems where time runs differently, e.g. on Earth and in a rocket at high speed in space, there are simply two different times connected to each other (which can normally be converted), as soon as one does something with that connection, such as measuring a property on a particle, the connection is gone (not if one only changes the state of those particles at a distance). It is true that these different times do not have to be simultaneous moments, but possibly this is mathematically compensated for the fact that the connection does not always have an exact immediate effect but adheres to simultaneity, so this requires difficult or impossible research in my opinion.

Yet another example about the fourth dimension from my archive. Motions are probably not continuous according to quantum mechanics, so e.g. if a car has a certain speed, the car stays in the same location for a short time, and then goes to the other location timelessly, because the motion is not continuous. If this happens fast enough, the car seems to make a continuous movement. Of course, this also applies to every particle of that car, e.g. an electron, etc. I think this is also a function from the fourth dimension, the car or electron can be moved timelessly in its entirety (over a very short distance of course).

How do I see the fourth dimension? At first I thought that there must be an invisible space intertwined with the visible space. In the invisible space that does not contain space and time like the visible space, everything is controlled from that invisible space. Later, I called that invisible space the fourth dimension. There is an infinite amount of (possibly separate) storage possible (in mathematical form) to control eventually many (parallel) worlds / spaces (if they exist, otherwise only 1), I don't think it is necessary to include more dimensions.

What is the difference between a global time and a local time (as I think)? By time, of course, I mean the rhythm of time, the clock runs slower or faster in comparison. E.g. on Earth we have a time that is the same everywhere and is determined by the total energy of the Earth (traveling through space) as I think. At a location that does not move relative to the Earth, the local time is equal to the global time. On moving structures on Earth (think of a train / airplane etc.) the local time goes slower, but we measure the global time of that movement as a stationary observer on Earth, inside the train or airplane a traveling observer measures the local time, after all a moving object has received more energy (through energy exchange, e.g. fuel), but the total energy of the Earth remains the same. According to my mind, the time of moving elementary particles (or of all kinds of particles) is measured in global time or in the local time of the moving structure to which that particle belongs. So the time of a moving structure such as the Earth or a moving object on Earth is determined by the emergent energy (the total of energy of that moving structure). Just as I think that the local time on a light particle is 0 or timeless, I also think that the local time on an elementary particle (or of all kinds of particles) is also 0 or timeless. What do I think happens to an electron at absolute zero 0 degrees Kelvin (-273 degrees Celsius)? This electron still has the same energy that contributes to the emergent energy of the Earth, but the extra local kinetic energy (which also contributes to the emergent energy of the Earth) has been converted and has therefore become 0. Now the local time of 0 or timeless becomes visible, the electron is locally observable in several places at the same time, I think an effect of timelessness. In the fourth dimension, I think these multiple places are timelessly connected. For example, I think that light particles with a local time 0 or timeless, are also all connected to each other in the fourth dimension, at least certainly within the same light wave.

In a quantum computer, one uses the state of a particle that it has not yet taken on a value for properties, it does not have to be entangled yet, but entangled particles are also used. One can change the probability that a certain value is taken on for a property and that probability can be between 0 and 100%, so if that probability is less than 50%, that value of that property is usually NOT taken on and if the probability is greater than 50%, that value of that property IS usually taken on. A bit in an ordinary computer can be 0 or 1, but the probability of the value of a property in such a particle can be between 0 and 100%, so there are infinite possibilities. As soon as one measures the particle, there are two possibilities, it has that value of that property and is called 1 or not what is called 0. So just like in a normal computer, such a particle gives a 1 or 0 as a possibility. But then the question is, what good are those probabilities? Certain mathematicians have developed strategies that allow you to use those probabilities to solve certain problems, e.g. looking for a best solution to a certain problem, as is calculated with ordinary computers, but a quantum computer is much, much faster. Because probabilities are used, such a strategy has to be repeated several times, the result that occurs most often is the solution to the problem. You have to read about it yourself to understand it a little better. If I study quantum mechanics more deeply after this, I may be able to explain this better later.

E.g. Microsoft has a quantum computer that can be used by anyone over the internet (search for "azure") if you create an account first. This quantum computer can be programmed with a specially developed computer language, so you can write and try out your own program. When it is busy, you have to wait a few days for the result. The amazing thing about such a quantum computer is that it is actually possible to change the states of particles, e.g. at a temperature of -273 degrees Celsius. One can even perform the entanglement between two particles yourself, as scientists do in laboratories and thus see what the results are in measurements (using program instructions). With each program instruction, something is carried out automatically, e.g. shining a particle with laser light, which was initially carried out in laboratories by scientists, etc.

So first we thought of elementary particles such as light particles or electrons as a pile of energy, now it turns out to be small systems that can give properties a value according to a probability calculation that can be influenced by us. Nature is wonderfully put together and the bottom is always not reached, there is always something new to investigate. For example, it has already been possible to take a picture of two entangled light particles (search the internet) just as they have left the crystal. You can see that they are split by an identical fault line, they are not spheres, but two luminous spots. Einstein thought it was a pity at the age of 70 that he had never understood what light was, that seems logical to me, we don't understand anything at all, we only find the connections as far as nature allows. That's why we can fly, for example. An invention is discovering what nature allows.

The deeper we dig, the more quirks we'll find. We still try to ignore something like an abstract fourth dimension, possibly there will come a day when we can no longer ignore it, and we will find out more and more what a peculiar world and space we live in.

Coming back to Bell's violation of inequality above. First the next example with identical twins, then about entangled particles that can also be considered as identical twins for their properties to be measured.

If you have two identical twins, you can measure the height (big or small in this case) or eye color (blue or brown in this case) or hair color (black or blonde in this case) in 1 of the identical twins and also know that this will be the same in the other identical twin. This is explained by the hidden parameter (variable) of DNA, which in the case of identical twins is the same for the properties to be measured. If one has a large group of identical twin pairs, one can mathematically reason the following: ("the number of large bluish twins") is less than or equal to (("the number of large twins with black hair") + ("the number of bluish twins with blond hair")). This is called Bell's inequality. But here are 3 known properties.

The same can be said for a large group of entangled particle pairs with three properties x, y, and z with values of 1 or 0, whatever they may be. Bell's inequality would then be: ("the number of particles with x1 and y1") is less than or equal to (("the number of particles with x1 and z1") + ("the number of particles with y1 and z0")). But here 2 properties are measured, and each property is measured to the other particle in the pair. This Bell's inequality does not seem to be correct in the case of entangled particles, which is therefore called the violation of Bell's inequality.

This gives me some dissatisfaction because with the identical twins there are 3 properties and with the entangled particles you only measure 2 properties. These 2 properties are also measured at the other particle, so e.g. x1 at one particle of the pair and y1 at the other particle of the pair, but should not matter, because what one measures would also apply to the other particle, one measures at the same time that they are still entangled, after the measurement the entanglement is broken. But if one only measures 2 properties in the identical twins, I also have an example that Bell's inequality is violated: e.g. one measures large and blue for 1 pair, all other pairs are a combination of small, blue and black hair or a combination of small, brown and blonde hair. As with the entangled particles, one is not allowed to reason on the third property that has not been measured.

An analysis of quantum mechanics (continuously updated in 2024)

i) Sources consulted are the books "Principles of Quantum Mechanics" and "Basic Training in Mathematics (A Fitness Program for Science Students)" by R.S., Wiki miscellaneous information, some scientific reports, and supplemented with some thoughts of my own. For the time being, as an extra reference work for facts, the brand new book "Power of the Invisible (The Quantessence of Reality)" by S.B., later I will read this in full.

Blood creeps where it can't go, so I'm going to finish my analysis of quantum mechanics anyway, it's too interesting because of the concept of timelessness!

Curiosity is also great, why the theory of relativity does not yet fit into quantum mechanics. If we do not continue to exist in any way after death, I will have known this in time, whatever use that may be 🙂.

shrinking vertically

Figure 1 (belonging at example of simultaneity above, and shrinking vertically, so perpendicular to the direction of movement) (in our system 0.75s / c, in the moving system possibly 0.866 is measured but I think now 1)

shrinking horizontally

Figure 2 (belonging at example of simultaneity above, and shrinking horizontally, so in the direction of movement) (in our system 0.75s / c, in the moving system possibly 0.866 is measured but I think now 1)

shrinking units and objects

Figure 3 (belonging at example of simultaneity above, shrinking units and objects)

Evaluation, 1 year later (updated December 2023)

The old version of this (simple explanation Einstein's theory of relativity) website can be found in this web archive. But I have been able to include the most recent content in a subdomain "", I don't want to index this subdomain so copy the name by yourself in the browser, login details are fetun / vcndfheu@#$

In the meantime, the English version of this website can no longer be found in Google (since Dec. 2023 also no longer in Bing), may have to do with my other topic (power of veto)! Still findable in other search engines. Unfortunately, the EU does not have its own search engine and the USA determines almost everything in the world! So we are still a province of the USA, but I am still glad that we in the EU spend more money on social affairs so that every citizen gets better off and money is not only spent on the sickly expansion of power!

After a 1-year break, I'm still looking forward to the topic again (it's going to be autumn / winter again), but I'm focusing more on quantum mechanics and on the topic of timelessness that started my interest 10 years ago (see "An analysis of quantum mechanics" above). By timelessness I do not mean that we are immortal in physical form, we can only exist in physical form in time and have an expiration date (see chapter 2, everything that experiences time exists in material form or positive energy). Possibly we may continue to exist in a different form.

I am going to reread my old text from the web archive and to process important things (personally important for me, it is a kind of private blog) or correcting in the above text. I've read that now.