Reconciling Quantum Mechanics and Relativity

Modern science is founded in instituted cognitive disparity, which began with Einstein’s hijacking of relativity theory. We can now use Ontological Mathematics to begin solving the illogical problems present in Einstein’s interpretation of relativity which subsequently found their way into quantum mechanics.

This entry was posted in Illuminism and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Reconciling Quantum Mechanics and Relativity

  1. Marcus says:

    Like I first came up with this on your Facebook Group and which you agreed with me:

    There is no travelling photon. Photons don’t travel. They are instantaneous. Photons aren’t things they are attributes.

    Also there is no “eventual” observer as if there is a time lag, as there is no time lag. It is instantaneous.

    It’s at the speed of thought i.e it’s the speed of “intention”. A mind intends and creates a thought, and the speed of thought is instantaneous.

    People get hung up on particles, which don’t exist. Atomist theory is Cognitive Disparity.

    Only when we realise there are no particles only perturbations in the field ( aether) then we can move on to instantaneous communication.

    There are only perturbations of different frequencies. There are no travelling particles. Thoughts are things but they are not particles. Particles are the cause of the disparity.

    See the Book “Ontological Mathematics Versus Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity” by Dr Thomas Stark for how the aether is the field that is the structured matrix of reality:

    Einstein rejected the idea of the aether and was much celebrated, embedding cognitive dissonance into science.

    So, the aether hasn’t gone away. It can’t go away. It is responsible for objective reality. Mainstream physicists can huff and puff all they like. They can’t abolish the real world to satisfy their ideology.

    Scientists still haven’t fathomed the importance of these considerations. There is a staggering difference between a physical wave – meaning a wave that requires a physical medium such as air and is a disturbance in that medium – and a wave that needs no medium. Because the latter isn’t a wave in something. It’s a wave itself. It’s not a physical wave. It’s a pure mathematical wave, a pure sinusoid. It is driven by mathematics, not by scientific materialism! It doesn’t need a physical medium … because it’s not physical! That, of course, is a conclusion that a scientist can never reach. It’s outside their paradigm. It acknowledges the ontology of mathematics!

    All of Einstein’s conclusions are falsified because the system is in fact absolute rather than relativistic. The “aether” isn’t something light travels through. The aether – the absolute criterion – it turns out, is light itself! Light – outside space and time – becomes the absolute condition that dictates all inertial reference frames.

    Why is the speed of light always the same? Because it’s the absolute frame of reference, because it’s the aether and the speed of light is always the same in the aether. The very fact that light is a wave is sufficient to make its speed invariant.
    An analytic sinusoidal wave always has the same speed.

    Scientists once imagined an absolute aether, through which light moved. In fact, the absolute aether is light itself – an Absolute Singularity of light – and spacetime moves through it!

    It’s remarkable how little attention scientists pay to key facts. It’s a staggering fact that light does not need a medium to convey it. There is actually only one reason for that – light is the medium. It is the fiber and fabric of existence. It’s the real aether. It had no need of space and time because it’s not in space and time; it has no need of a physical medium because it’s not physical.

    Stark, Dr. Thomas. Ontological Mathematics Versus Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity Kindle Edition.

  2. Marcus says:

    Has anyone ever seen the movie “Thrive”? There is Thrive 2 as well.

    Thrive is the natural flow of life, or it SHOULD be!

    Here is a link to watch the full 2 hour movie:

    This guy Foster Gamble, is applying ontological maths to the way the world and universe is created to create a better world.

    Here is a transcript:

    And Here are Chapter Summaries of the movie.

  3. Marcus says:

    Ok having watched that. Does this diagram look familiar?

    The “Inception” movie uses this concept in many scenes of the movie obviously indicating its significance.

  4. It has nothing to do with ontological mathematics, nor does it furnish a theory of everything, nor does it intersect with ont math.

  5. Zelator says:

    Zelator has no problem. He is on the same team.

  6. Marcus says:

    What are you referring to? The movie Thrive or the Inception Movie?

  7. Marcus says:

    Ok big boy. Tell me the truth……..

  8. Marcus: “Why do my posts go into moderation? Even without any links? Cancel culture here stinks.”

    Zelator: “Zelator has no problem. He is on the same team.”

    How and Why are you posting as both Marcus and Zelator?

    You’re modded because, like Zelator who you sound just like and seem identical with, you post things that don’t make any sense, aren’t too helpful, are hostile to ontological mathematics, and your volume distracts from what people actually want to talk about here.

  9. Marcus says:

    You are known to block and alter peoples comments. How can anyone trust you?

  10. Marcus


    Why are you posting as two different people? Why is Marcus pretending to be a different person when it is actually Zelator?

  11. “You are known to block and alter peoples comments. How can anyone trust you?”

    Ahh I see…the long-lost unrequited butthurt mask-wearer…LOL

  12. How can anyone trust YOU when you post with multiple accounts, pretending to be different people, never telling us who you are, and who gets butthurt over my TRSUTWORTHINESS of blocking troll comments to protect this community who trust me? 🙂

  13. “What are you referring to? The movie Thrive or the Inception Movie?”

    The torus stuff. The movie info about the financial system is good. The torus stuff has no intersection with ontological mathematics and doesn’t actually explain anything.

  14. Zelator says:

    I used Marcus as you blocked Zelator.

    [JP: Your Zelator ID wasn’t blocked, until you ID’d yourself just now. Your Marcus one was moderated because it was new and posting irrational irrelevant stuff. You’re getting your wires crossed in your program. We ID’d this account as a Zeta a long time ago. Just letting you play it out to see you destroy yourself, as you just did.]

    I’m not hostile to ontological maths.

    [JP: Tying it to that torus retardation defines hostility to Hockney.]

    I add value. Ask MP and Phil. If your audience hated my work they would say.

    [JP: I think it’s more of a case of being nice to someone who’s clearly mentally unstable. And now, you’ve proven it, and demonstrated that you’re the long-lost troll who can’t show its face and only exists as a mask. How sad.]

    You are hostile to me as you want to be king bee. Lol sorry to tread on your territory.

    [JP: There’s no such thing as a king bee. Learn some basic bee life, would you?]

    You hate anyone who is more knowledgeable than you or questions your authority. Grow up.

    [JP: You use multiple sock-puppet accounts when you don’t even need to, like a child, like a persona with no interior. You wish you could play with the big boys, but never can, because you can’t.]

    I will not go away as this movement is bigger than you.

    [JP: Then why do you buzz around me like as if I am the center of this movement? You’re terribly mixed up. Entertaining though, in a schadenfreude kinda way.]

    Get used to being challenged on your retarded rubbish.

    [JP: Yes…with helical solar system and torus field, which has nothing to do with ontological mathematics, and explains nothing. I can explain relativity and quantum mechanics and resolve the most complex long-standing paradoxes in those theories with ontological mathematics. You have MUH TORUS, which solves literally nothing and explains literally nothing, and has no ontological basis whatsoever. Derp.]

    The helical model – our solar system is a vortex:

    [JP: That is the most retarded, inane, non-mathematical, non-physicist, unconscious new-age BS imaginable. But, it is not as if you haven’t gone in for flat Earth theory in previous comments…idiot.]

  15. Z says:

    Haha I knew you would do this you sad little man. You will be exposed for all to see. I will make it my goal to see you exposed. You really are a lost soul.

    [JP: If I met someone who I thought was a lost soul, I would be kind, empathetic, try to help, or lastly, just stay away and let them figure it out on their own. The last thing I would do is exclaim that I want to kick a lost soul when its down.

    This shows just what kind of a sick creep you are. Here you are, labelling me a lost soul, and your orientation to that concept is to want to hurt it further, to call it names, to belittle it, to “expose it” for everyone to see just how lost it is.

    That’s a showcase of YOUR psychological profile. It shows just what the Zetas are like, as “people”.

    Do you want to know why you have this orientation towards me? Here is why:

    Unrequited love refers to love that is not reciprocated or understood as such by the beloved. The beloved may not be aware of the admirer’s deep and pure affection, or may consciously reject it. The term carries an intentionally dramatic or romantic connotation to it, in part because the phrase appears so often throughout classic literature and poetry and continues to be a popular theme in books, movies, and music today. Unrequited love is an intense romantic longing for someone who doesn’t feel the same way about you, and it’s often more closely related to infatuation than real love. It can be challenging to cope when you care deeply for someone who doesn’t reciprocate your feelings.”

    You’re in love with me. And since I won’t reciprocate that love, your love inverts to hate, and you wish to destroy what you couldn’t have, and what didn’t approve of you. The feeling of rejection you’re experiencing makes you want to disappear the source of the rejection, so that you can pretend it never existed, or at least, justify that it shouldn’t have existed since it didn’t love you, because something that doesn’t love you shouldn’t exist, in your sad little mind.

    No wonder why you can only exist as a mask. Who you really are, and what you really look like, must be hideous for all to see.]

  16. Zelator says:

    This will be recorded for posterity. Your words will ultimately destroy you, you idiot:

    “The torus stuff has no intersection with ontological mathematics and doesn’t actually explain anything”.

    HAHAHA……….. That will be a meme to Joe Postma lolololololololol

    [JP: Unrequited love.]

  17. CD Marshall says:

    Where are these guys getting 342 W/m^2 as incoming solar? It makes no sense that’s not even half or the whole globe.

    Oh I see they are calculating the entire solar constant. That’s even more idiotic.

  18. boomie789 says:

    You are right that the photon actually has to hit your eye first when it is observed. That is really interesting to ponder in relation to this model and the infrequency it is questioned. That would be an interesting one to raise your hand to in class and question the professor. What would be his answer?


    looks like somebody nuked New Orleans. In one of your videos, I remember you saying the sun has the energy to lift whole lakes into the air. I think this is a pretty cool representation of that. Lake Maurepas I guess?

  19. boomie789 says:


  20. Perfect towering cumulonimbus thunderhead!

  21. And yes great representation of the power of the sun which it can’t do with only -18C input.

    A professor wouldn’t be able to answer it. I actually asked 25 years ago. They reverted to the “God Mode” explanation, where they make the observation fallacy I discussed.

  22. Pingback: “Can We All Just Relax?” Julia Hartley-Brewer Clashes With Meteorologist Over Global Warming – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort

  23. CD Marshall says:

    This dude is a class act climate retard.

    CD Marshall
    The claim is the oceans are warming.

    James William Owens
    The data say ocean heat content is clearly rising
    Note in fig 1, light blue is 0 to 700 m depth, darker blue is 700 to 2000 m

    CD Marshall
    Might come as a shock to you, I know. IR not even on it for it breaches only the microlayer.

    James William Owens
    The downwelling IR heats the thin microlayer or skin at the surface, CD
    Inhibits heat transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere
    So solar heat captured is retained
    See papers by Peter Minnett

    CD Marshall
    Evaporation is always always always a cooling process for ocean water.
    (So I showed him it takes about 600cal/g of thermal energy to evaporate water.)

    James William Owens
    Heat of fusion and heat of vaporization have no connection to the tweet thread, CD
    Just your continued smoke blowing
    You failed again

    Climate Clown Retard

  24. CD Marshall says:

    Anyone verify this claim?
    Nikolov contends that at last glacial maximum (20K yrs ago) the Earth’s atmosphere had 33% less mass than now. He also contends that at the peak of the Eemian interglacial, the Earth’s atmosphere had 10% more mass than it does now.

  25. It could be a strawman interpretation of their work.

  26. CD Marshall says:

    Well, he didn’t like you either and worships Roy so…grain of salt.

  27. There you go. Just a liar and sophist.

  28. CD Marshall says:

    I thought you said dipshit at first.😂 Or maybe I saw what I wanted to see.

  29. CD Marshall says:

    Well guess that answers this question…somewhat.
    Ned Nikolov, Ph.D.
    Apr 24
    Excellent reasoning! Yes, solar radiation was NOT the driver of Ice Ages! We think that indeed there ware periodic changes of total atmospheric mass & surface air pressure causing the glacial-interglacial cycle. And we have a numerical proof for it. See:

  30. CD Marshall says:

    Although as a non-physicist wouldn’t a delta in solar radiation actually change pressure.

    Clearly a much colder planet has a lower pressure. The hydrostatic balance would decline wouldn’t it? The PBL would decline, vorticity in the PBL would decline.

  31. J Cuttance says:

    CD yes pressure is the great temperature dictator. Other factors have no more than a coiple of degrees’ say. The weight of gas above you determines the number of particles per area bouncing off you and their average speed when they do.
    When someone once pointed out that Venus’s temperature at 1atm’s altitude was exactly what it should be taking into account only its closer proximity to the sun, right then I knew the greenhouse effect was drivel. With 2000x earth’s concentration of CO2, where is the warming? The slayers and Nikolov’s paper put the issue into the realms of irrefutability.

  32. J Cuttance says:

    P.S. JP that was a good stoush between you and Zelator. “Unrequited love…two of the saddest words in the English language.” – Ben Elton

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s