None. I'm a writer, I'm an author.
I've got perhaps 8 or 9 books published in French, in France,
in English. I've got at least 4-4 or five
books published, novels, poetry, essays, philosophy.
And then the last one is New Age physics.
It's I think it's reversed anyway and.
No, it's not traversed on my side.
Oh, great, perfect. And but, you know, I was a court
clerk in the Crown Court in Isleworth in London for 12
years. And I've worked in conferences
before that, producing conferences.
I've got a master's degree in French literature, so, you know,
not physics. So my book cannot be that
complicated because if I don't have a degree myself in physics,
it is just, you know, learning online and everything about
physics and trying to figure out everything, then everybody can
understand it. Because I'm, I don't go into
lots of details or equations or proof or anything like that.
So it's more philosophical, you know, physics.
Well, I like that already because I have this view that
science should be open source and has always been open source.
It shouldn't be relegated to people in white coats with a
with a stamp on a piece of paper.
Well, exactly. You know, they used to have like
a, a very nice kind of relationship.
There was Germany, France and England, you know, the UK, they
they were, you know, all working on physics and writing stuff and
writing, reading what the other was writing and coming up with
new ideas. But you know what a peer review
process now everybody, everything that can be against
Einstein or Newton, you know, certainly would not pass.
You know, it will never be published.
So it's, it's a bit like, you know, all the stuff about
COVID-19, it's, it's, it's very censored.
And if you want to see that, and Stein was incorrect on anything,
you know, you'll be left out of the door.
So probably, you know, lose your career.
I don't know. So it's, it's, it's it's very
difficult for people with a tentative theories, you know,
and even within theoretical physics, it's, it's very
difficult for them to, to move away from, you know, the, the
standard physics if you want. OK, so basically you're arguing
that Einstein was wrong on a bunch of things.
Yes, and not only almost almost everything to be honest.
And you know, it's, it's all been misinterpreted and you
know, it's all fantasies that everything that he said, you
know, disproves that disprove that there's always a different
interpretation. It's like quantum mechanics as
well. There's always a different kind
of explanation or interpretation that you can give to something.
And they don't seem to have looked very hard to find them
for a start. And you know, physics should be
very simple and very easy to understand if it's becoming like
only 5 people in the world can understand it, like quantum
mechanics. And there's a serious problems
and it's got to be mechanical in nature.
You know, you need to be able to see particles and you need to be
able to move and you might be able to explain what is going on
here and in the interactions. It cannot just be mathematical,
you know, otherwise, yes, you can.
They are theories, you know, so they, you can reach for good
results like Einstein, you, you reach very good results and
Newton as well. But they are, you know,
alternate theories, but they, they explain the same
observations. So that's the thing.
So, you know, for Newton, if you've got gravity for Newton,
it's like these two balls are emanating like some sort of
attraction and then the balls come together.
This is what gravity is, but we never seen this, this attacking
force and we don't know what the power source is.
So for new for Einstein, it's the whole space time is actually
a sheet of paper that can be bent, that can actually be
pierced, you know, so and, and reduced to nothing from which a
Big Bang can start. You know, it's like the
singularity. So in in atomic expansion
theory, there is no more Big Bang.
There is no more singularities. There's no more black holes.
There is no more wormholes possible because there is no
sheet of basically space time that can be bent and everything.
But the the idea of gravity in the atomic expansion theory is
that matter expands and so but we cannot see it because if you
were expanding yourself, how could you see that matter
expands, that everything is expanding at the same rate,
which is a rate of 0.00000077 per second square.
Sorry. So if matter expands, then the
the distance between objects reduces and that's the same
thing. And if you've got two big balls
here that are actually are expanding and they're passing,
you know, each other in a parallel opposition, opposition
as you, if we cannot see the expansion, what happened is that
they, they don't change size. And then you can see that it
becomes a, a natural orbit effect so that you can see now
what orbits are or why they exist because with the
expansion. But when it doesn't, if it
expands, they just expand and they just pass each other.
But if it doesn't expand because we cannot see it, then there's
lots of motion effect for which that the distance reduces, but
the object remains the same size from our point of view.
And then you, you get, you get to an orbit.
So this is what gravity it probably is.
You know, it's like everything is expanding for reason that we
don't know about, but all matter, all the particles and
then the rate that I've just said.
And this is what why the the distance reduces as as things
expand and we cannot see the expansion.
OK, hang on, hang on. There's a lot going on there, so
let's just break some of that apart.
You mentioned gravity. Something that I have been
fascinated by is exactly what is gravity because it cannot be
reproduced by humans. This is, this was Newton's idea,
just that there there was a force attracting an attracting
force acting in a distance where you know, the masses were
attracting each other. And from that on, he, he, he
came up with an an equation, but his equation was based on
observations. So if you observe a phenomena in
nature, you can always come up with an equation to explain it.
You know, it's like Galileo came up with the acceleration
multiplied by T square. It gives you the the rate at
which an object falls onto the Earth.
Maybe I've got it wrong, but it's about that acceleration
material by Times Square and so when an object is falling down
to earth, what is happening is that the earth is expanding by
4.9 metres per second each second and the objects falls to
the earth and the the acceleration for it.
The earth is expanding to catch up with the object.
The object is actually just floating in space.
And what I'm saying is that the distance reduction between the
object falling and the earth produces one because the objects
are expanding. So that's the absolute deduction
in distance in in cavity. But there is a further relative
decrease in distance because space does not expand with the
with the objects, with everything else in the universe.
So space is a void. So a metre before the expansion
is half a metre after everything is doubled in size and
everything double S in size every 19 minutes.
Now that sounds very alarming, but we don't see anything
expanding. So in our resulting reality,
nothing is expanding. So and there is a lot of space,
you know, behind it. But so this could actually
decrease in distance because space doesn't expand with
everything else. If you're going 30 miles away in
space and it takes you 3019 minutes to get there, by the
time you get there there there's only 15 metres of of space or
kilometres. Oh, whatever.
So, so, so did this. This is what the acceleration
is. The relative decrease in
distance is what why there was an acceleration.
So if you're going to a destination that is 50 miles
away and then you know everything's expanding as as you
go there and space is not by the time you get there, the
distance, all the distances have shrunk.
And it is because everything is expended, but you know, orbits
counteracts gravity. So, you know, we always have the
same distance from the sun and the Earth when it's orbiting.
And, you know, when they call magnetism also can counteract
gravity. So.
So these are two things that you know can keep gravity apart.
This expansion idea if if you can't observe it, how do you
know that everything is expanding?
It's a theory, but they are proof.
You know the I I don't know if people search on YouTube about
how a slinky falls from a building, you they will see
something extraordinary that neither Newton or Einstein can
explain that you, you actually hold the slinky in your hand
from the top of a building. You can even see it from your
own height. And when the slinky falls, it
will actually stay. It will be suspended in the air
the, the, the base of it. And then the whole thing will
fall down. And only when the touch suddenly
will go down. So it's levitating.
The stinky is levitating in the air the base of it.
And if you, you have to slow it down to really see, but it's
several seconds, you know, it's a massive slinky and it falls
and falls. And this is levitating.
There is no way we can just turn on Newton that it could levitate
the base of it because it it when Newton everything falls
immediately. And if you've got a massive big
funnel like that, then you've got an object that's going to
fall in Einstein. As soon as it's at the top of
the funnel, it will fall immediately.
So the only explanation for this is that when you have a stinky
and you let go or spring both ends comes back together.
You know there is not one that stays there without moving and
the other one coming down and then fall off.
So what's happening is that the base of the stinky is moving up
while the top is going down. And what?
And then it's because the earth is expanding at the same rate
that the base is going up. So you can see that the base of
the stinky is going up, but you can't see it because the the
earth is expanding with it. And, and the stretch of the
stinky was because of the expansion of the Earth in the
1st place because you were holding it, the stretch, you
know, while you were being pushed up by the Earth and the
stinky was coming down. So that's one proof.
Another proof is that the Pioneer anomalies, I don't know
if you're aware the spacecraft that I've left in the solar
systems, you know, as long as something is in orbit around the
the sun, you know, you cannot see any difference because
everything expanded the same rate.
And the orbits of the planets also expand, you know, going to
spiral, you know, and so you cannot see this.
But if you don't have something that is orbiting, like the
Pioneer anomalies, the Pioneer spacecraft, they start
decelerating and they're decelerating.
They've called out the anomaly and they have actually proposed
some solutions, but none of them are very credible, like gas leak
or something. It's because the solar system is
expanding towards it. And because the solar system is
expanding it, it it's actually reducing in distance.
And in reality it's not reducing in distance.
It is going exactly the same space, but it's a relative
effect that makes it really decelerate as the solar system
is expanding. There are other proofs like that
involving springs and things. So, you know, you come come up
with theories and then the best, the ones that can explain
everything is actually the one that you should adopt.
And to be honest with you, it explains everything in physics.
This is the expansion of matter and the collection of matter as
well explains everything like maeochromatism, which is a
second force of nature. It's the expansion, the growth
and the shrinkage of the electrons themselves.
They can go and they can shrink. And if you've got many of them
and they've you've got clouds of them, then they can actually
push each other. And so that's the force of
Cologne. And if they actually all came
out same density, they will all shrink back.
So that's the attracting force of Cologne.
And if they are kind of different densities and they are
kind of stock, then you've got static electricity and you've
got massive big clouds of these electrons.
And clouds of electrons in atomic expansion theory is our
magnetic fields and clusters of electrons are photons and they
are light. So that's difference, you know,
from Einstein. So photons are no longer kind of
intangible particles, you know, made of energy.
They are actually clusters of electrons and the size of them
defines their wavelength and their colours.
And if they are, you know, eat light or visible light or
traviolate or X rays, and the size of them means how many
electrons, clusters of electrons you've caught you've got per
cluster. So this means that relativity is
not real. There is a relative Vt to
motion, you know, and and in my theory, you know when objects
are moving towards you, they're not moving, they're actually
expanding. And then if they are moving
away, they are just shrinking because you, the reality is
actually psychological in nature.
You can only be a representation of your own brain within your
mind. And you receive signals, you
know, made of, you know, electrical signals or
electromagnetic signals. And then it gets into your eyes.
And then you can actually represent reality in your mind.
So at this point, there's nothing really real.
There is no distance in the universe when the UFOs, your
phone disappear and reappear. It can go, it can go anywhere at
any distance at any time very quickly because it's shrinking
away to that place that where they are or it's expanding
towards where they want to go. And so there is still a more
relativity to motion. So we will still need kind of
transformation equations like Lorenz to actually find out
where something is relocated in space compared to where it
really is. Because light bends as it
actually pass between, you know, near star, you know, it bends.
All galaxies, it bends. This is a cavitational lensing
effect which actually confirm Einstein's theory.
But you don't need Einstein to actually explained that, you
know, estimates passing by a star would actually bent because
of the expansion of matter as the sun expands and the the the
the light would actually go in a partial bit around the sun and
then so the distance between them reduced.
But since light goes very quickly then actually will
continue on this layer on its on its course, but it will actually
have actually reduce the distance.
So we would have changed path. So when you look at the light,
when you see the clusters of electrodes into your eye,
something that you look at, it will seem that the planet is
there, sun is there, but it's actually not there.
It's actually it has bent a lot before it arrived to you.
So that these are so and the connectivity is like for
productivity motion. Special relativity of Enstein is
about relativity, motion relativity and Galileo had one
too. The Galileo relativity of motion
is probably probably best. This is probably what we should
go back to instead of Enstein if you don't want my idea that
actually everything is actually expanding or shrinking with
motion from your point of view and there is no distance in the
universe. So, so yeah, there's so, but so
there's always other explanations for, you know, and
general relativity of Einstein. It's, it's more about, you know,
motion with speeds and then the gravitational field would
actually affect. There's a whole bunch of things
about Einstein, you know that I've been misinterpreted,
basically. Well, also the fact that he has
been cemented as some some sort of God.
You cannot question him, and that is obviously an
unscientific approach anyway. You should be able to question
him. Yes, and many people have
questioned him, but you know, not officially perhaps, but you
know, they still cannot move away from it because it it is so
everywhere. It it's actually the base of
every theory there is. So even quantum mechanics,
cavity theory is actually based on Einstein.
So it's very difficult to get rid of him.
You know, there is, you know, there are three people perhaps
at the moment in the world that have an expansion theory at the
base of their physics. There is me.
There is a Mark McCutcheon, which you know, I work with all
the time. And this is his book, The Final
Theory, Mark McCutcheon. And there is also Miles
Matthews. I don't know if you've heard of
him, but all right, you've got, you've heard of him.
He's got lots of physics as well.
Yeah, he doesn't do interviews though.
None, you know, it's probably a good idea.
Mark Mark Cutcheon doesn't do any interviews either.
So I'm the other ones picking on the subject.
But Mark Miles Matthews, even him has actually kind of moved
away from expansion theory and but he kept he's got a he's
found an equivalent kind of idea about the spinning universe that
can actually create this acceleration towards everything.
But there's still, I think an expansion, but it's reducing it.
It's prevented from going any further by something of a charge
field that he's got. I don't want to speak too much
about his theory because I'm sure he doesn't like very much,
but these people should check it out.
But he, he's got an expression theory as well.
So, and he kept mathematics, Captain Stein and relativity and
everything because he, he, he, he went in a different way than
Mark McCutcheon. Mark McCutcheon doesn't need it.
And my my my theories are based on Mark McCutcheon where it
doesn't need Einstein at all and there is other alternate tier
explanations for everything and for quantum mechanics as well,
which has been misinterpreted basically.
What happens if we drop Einstein?
That's it. The problem is that there's a
lot of things that goes on. First of all, there is no more
photons, so there's no more kind of energy.
Energy is actually particles in motion.
There is also that the speed of light is no longer constant.
If the speed of light is no longer constant, then we can go
faster than the speed of light. We can go anywhere in the world,
in the universe. I mean much faster than the
speed of light. And light will still arrive at
you because although it it moves at a speed of light, there are
particles that you would eventually see or your camera
will will register and then you will either see in Fast forward
or in slow motion or frozen in time or in real time if you are
at risk compared to the object. So there's no more speed of
light limit for a start. Second, the speed of light
itself should be relative instead of being constant
because it it is something that you see and different observers
will see differently depending on where they are.
So the speed of light should be relative instead of constant.
And time, time for Einstein is actually what is relative.
So the time rate can change. So not anymore.
The time is constant everywhere here on Earth, in space.
And also, you know, the dimensions if you want.
So if if time is not, is not constant, then there's, there's,
there's a big difference from, you know, the point of view of
Einstein. And there are also, since the
speed of light is not relative, it can accelerate.
You know when the steroids goes around the sun and they actually
enter into a partial orbit, they there's a slingshot effect,
which is relative motion effect due to the expansion of matter.
And so light has got the same thing, so it will accelerate,
but on Earth we will not see this that clearly because it's
also slowed down by a lot of particles that it meets along
the way, like our atmosphere. So we may always measure the
speed of light to BC, which is about 300,000 kilometres an
hour. But I think that you will find
that in space probably the speed of light is is is accelerating a
lot, a great deal. But you know the the original
speed of light which is most of it comes from when they are
rejected out of the atom. This is most of their speed.
And at that point then they are subject to cavity.
This would also mean that there'd be no singularities.
No Big Bang, no black holes, no wormholes.
So this, this idea of a black hole was not generally accepted
at the time. You know, it was really actually
there was a lot of opposition and there were lots of
alternatives. And as if Enstein goes, then
there is no more singularities. At some point there nothing.
There was no Big Bang where autumn nothing came, the whole
universe anyway. They cannot find a central point
for it in the first place. The further we look into space,
you know, even if it's 14 million light years or billions
light years away, we still find all galaxies.
So and the idea of The Big Bang should go and it's it in
expansion theory we don't have The Big Bang.
And so you know, there are three options.
Either the universe always existed as it is, or there was a
creation event and the creation event could there be a computer
simulation or it could be God thinking something.
Our brain is like a biological computer if you want.
So if I'm can think something, if I went in prison for 20 years
and the only thing I had in solitary confinement was my
mind, I would perhaps try to create the earth and everyone on
it and identify a few people. There will be non playing
characters but there will be a few that will follow and things
I can think of something like that.
So a God could have actually have created something like
that. And if we aren't within a
simulation, if I can do that myself, a God within a
simulation could also do that. But so.
So either someone thought this, this reality to the universe
into existence, or it's a computer simulation, or, you
know, it was always there. And even if it's a computer
simulation or even if it's a God creation, there could have been
an evolution. Because you can actually, when
you create something, you can say, OK, I want all the signs
that there was an evolution. I want all the signs that
billions of years have passed, even if the world has been has
been created this morning when you woke up, you know, or you
know, I don't know how long ago, you know, more recently than you
think you can create the world as it is.
And there's always a passive in the past doesn't exist When you
dream something, you there is a past, you know, you, you are in
a situation probably at work or something, and you interact with
people and you remember things that happened before that event
in your dream. So there is a past that exists
there that you never lived. So reality might be very
similar, you know, and the past might never have been even
though it was a creation event. So I don't have a, I don't know
which option it is in those three, but they are all
possible. And the possibility of a
computer simulation is, is certainly very high.
You know, after Mike bolst home or something from Oxford
University or something, his paper was very convincing.
So it's very likely that we live in a computer simulation,
especially with the event of AI. You know, if God has any kind of
mind like AI, I'm pretty sure he can think of our universe with
billions of people on it very easily and control all that
without any much problem and be everywhere at once.
So expansion theory is actually compatible with the sort of
David Icke view that everything's a simulation, and
it's also compatible with with the Christian or religious
perspective that there's a creator, but it's not compatible
with Flat Earth theory. If I haven't read much about
flatter theory, but if people were to try to explain gravity
using the expansion of their Flat Earth, I'm sure they can
find a way. It would be easy.
So it it could be compatible with that too.
And it would explain also what anti gravity can be.
You know, because anti gravity is very interesting in in like
an expansion theory, because if the Earth is always expanding or
you can you create anti gravity. It's it's like there's nothing
you can do because the Earth is always expanding and it's
expanding the distance reduces. It was an acceleration.
You couldn't have anti gravity. So how do you explain UFOs?
You know, they are floating up in space.
They don't seem to be using any kind of proportion.
They can float out completely up there and no proportion, no
noise, anything. So what is anti gravity here is
actually buoyancy. You know, when you've got a
balloon of air in water, it goes up to the top because the
density of the air is much less dense than the water.
And you've got a balloon of ileum, which ileum is a gas that
is actually not very dense. It's one of the earlier, I think
it's the second gas or the first one, I can't remember.
But it, it goes up in the air as well because it's less dense
than the atmosphere, the composition of the atmosphere,
which is nitrogen, oxygen. And so the UFO is the same
thing. It's buoyancy.
But what is happening here is it's the the particles, you
know, when you've got the, the air console expand or that that
shrink, you know, they, they can, they can if they go, it
depends on their speed. If they go very fast or orbits
go faster, then it vibrates faster.
So the frequency is higher. And so what's happening is that
all the, the, the particles enlarge and they're all
vibrating faster. And then the molecules, the
atoms, they are expanding, they are larger.
They are also more spaced out. And it changes the density of
matter. This is what I call the intense
dimensional density of matter. And that explains.
And then this is less dense than our own dimensional, intense
dimensional density of matter. So that's how they can float.
So it all makes sense, you know, So this is what density cavity
is. As as long as you get your
particles go faster, then everything enlarges, everything
is more spaced out. And what happens is that you
change the dimension. The dimension this is what it
meant by that is the size of the objects is actually the size of
the particles and so that you move to another dimensions and
the frequencies how fast all these particles are spinning.
So this is how unscavity can be explained and other dimensions
that that's why ghosts can appear and disappear also
because they just their particles are moving a little
faster or slower than what our senses can can actually see.
And that would explain why a child might be vibrating faster
at a higher frequency would see a ghost while an adult won't.
And the same for UFOs. You sorry, just to go back to
your helium balloon, gravity doesn't pull it down.
That's also quite interesting. Yes, this is this is what
Beyoncé is and this is how these massive boat on the on the ocean
can float because the density is much less than the water.
So the helium balloon, if the gas is this is a a fact of
physics that anything that is less dense will be pushed up
above what is denser. And if you've got these kind of,
you know, the differences in density of matter all the way
from here to the middle of the Galaxy, then you just have to
adjust your frequency of matter to, to, to be at the same rate
at that that it is at that location and even time, you can
even time travel. So if you adjust your frequency
or your vibration rate of matter, you can go anywhere in
the universe instantly. And you can also at any
particular time because everything anywhere has a unique
frequency and we all don't use, we don't all live in the same
dimension. If you want, we all have an
individual dimensions. But when you've got a certain
kind of scale of of dimension all together, then you call it
the 4th dimension. And you know, if you've got
which we are in apparently, and then no, we aren't moving to the
fourth. I think because time is no good
dimension not understand is gone.
So we it's so time is just constant.
But if your if your particles are vibrating faster time, your
time rate will seem to be faster even though it will actually be
taking at the same speed. You can accomplish more task in
the in the same amount of time that someone is vibrating
slower. So in that way, time could all
still be said to be relative, although it is constant because
if you look at it, the the planets are not moving faster.
So time is not very going faster.
You can just do more in the same amount of time.
So, so in other dimensions, you know, one of our day can be a
year for them. So yeah.
So that that's one thing of expansion theory, or my theory
anyway. OK, so so Einstein argued that
light, the speed of light is constant and the expansion
theory suggests that the speed of light is not constant and
that time is constant. Is that correct?
Time is constant and the speed of light is no longer constant.
It is actually variable and also it is relative so it changes so.
But on Earth is usually around sea, so we need to keep that in
mind. And if you look at this as
equation equal MC square, which is mass energy, kinetic energy
because this is what it is about kinetic energy equal mass
multiplied by the speed of light square if if you change you if,
since the speed of light is constant, if you change the
kinetic energy of an object, which is the force of impact it
will have if it hits something, you know the only the mass can
change because the speed of light is constant.
So that's a problem. And the mass is relative,
relative stick mass. The mass doesn't really change,
but from the point of view of someone, the mass can become
infinite like in a particle accelerator.
But it is not basically the it's the it's the speed of light that
changes. This is and the mass always
stays the same. So you see there's a massive
difference with this equation. We might as well perhaps you go
and use the kinetic energy equation, which is Ek equal half
MV square, which is almost identical to Einstein.
So you know, there's only 1/2 there and it's because of
calculating average of speeds. But V is velocity, so yeah.
OK, so so so light in expansion theory is not made of photons,
but of clusters of electrons. Yes and but you know for for
mark and miles, you know speed of light is not accelerating.
These are these are my ideas. But yeah, so, and it makes
sense, as I said, that the speed of light, the the light is made
of crosses of electrons and in it's, it's, it's, it's, there's
no much difference. You know, you could still call
them photons, but if they are crosses of electrons and you can
have different sizes, you know, you could also have different
sizes. Photon.
At the moment they don't say that, but if you've got a mass
that that's the difference and they've got a shape and a
volume. But you know, in my theory, you
know, it's, it's the everything is the same when when you've got
an expansion theory, everything that is extremely small, like
particle physics quickly become extremely large, like astral
physics. So it's the same thing.
So an electron is actually a solar system.
They are the same. So you've got the nucleus, which
is the sun, and you've got planets that orbits that sun.
And so I've called the neutrinos in the electron.
So you've got a super neutrino as the sun, you've got neutrinos
as planets, and you've got some neutrinos as moons.
So you can imagine that an electron is exactly like a solar
system. And so when electrons are
interacting together, it's like other solar system interacting
together. We will find probably other
planets orbiting very far from our known 8 planets where
actually connects us to other solar systems.
And together they form, you know, larger particles such as
neutrons, protons within, you know, an atom.
And those are basically just a collection of solar system and
they're connected together. And the Galaxy itself is
actually an atom. So an atom is made of electrons
like, you know, like a Galaxy is made of solar systems.
And then you've got a molecule after that.
So the molecules are made of atoms, you know, and they're
connected together by electrons. So at a larger scale, you've got
galaxies and they're connected together by orbiting solar
systems. And so so you've got cosmic
molecules. So all together, what we're
looking at at the moment when we're looking at the night sky,
it could be something, it might be alive, it might not be, might
be a rock of fish, it might be God, you know, we might be
inside God. That would explain why he's
everywhere. And from what, from what I
calculated, everything that we see in our sky at the moment is
about half the size of a cell. So if it was to be alive, we
should be able to see patterns in the night sky of things that
you would normally find in a cell like DNARNA, organelle,
things like that. So, yeah, so, so this is this is
this is quite a big change from normal physics.
And to make all this work together, I can tell you it's,
it's quite something, but it's all our base of expansion and
contraction and growth of matter.
OK, so if everything in the universe is expanding and
doubling in size every 19 minutes constant rate including
the universe, how is it that the earth and moon are not getting
closer then? Because as I said earlier,
orbits is a way to counter high gravity and orbits are, you
know, as I explained, it's, it's all due to the geometry of, of
expansion. So, you know, Einstein's theory
was geometric in nature because the space was bent, space time
was bent. So it it had to obey geometry
and Newtons, it was like an attraction at a distance.
You've got vector forces. So at that point it's not
geometrical. And so, and then expansion
theory is that if, if things are passing like that in space, as
they expand, they they actually expand like that.
But if they are, if they are saying the staying the same size
from our point of view, the only the distance reduces, but the
objects remain the same size. So that's what you get, an orbit
and the orbit, you know, the objects are going totally
different directions very fast, you know, behind the scenes.
And that's what we call the gods viewpoint because we can never
see that viewpoint. But if you could see the
expansion of matter, this is what you would see.
And this is how you can actually explain the mechanics of the
universe is that by seeing what's happening behind the
scenes. If you could see the expansion
of matter where there is no gravity, there's just they're
just expanding and they're just moving away.
But when from our point of view, there is something in reality,
when we don't see the expansion, we see a natural orbit effect.
And so that's why they actually orbit and because if they are
leaving, if they are going into opposite directions, you know
they're never going to collide. And, and, and everything is just
relative motion from our point of view and relative motion
effects because we cannot see the expansion.
So any kind of orbits will actually just contracts cavity,
but it's the cavity is still there all the time.
All the distances are reducing in the universe and that's why
everything is accelerating and that's why all the distances are
accelerating because distance is always reduced.
So our solar systems, you know, to see that it's expanding, you
have to compare with other solar systems that we are not
connected to. And you would just see that the
distance is reduces. But if we aren't connected with
other solar systems through other planets orbiting, then
what happens is that they always remain at the same distance
because of because of this. That's a motion effect.
So and then you know, and at a smaller scale, you know, closer
to objects, you also have electromagnetism that can
counteract gravity. So gravity is not a force, it's
just, it's just everything expanding.
It's a it's. It's not a force.
It is a it, it's just the expansion of matter and that the
geometry of expansion will explain, you know what you will
see in the universe, all the orbits and and the reduction in
distance of objects. Like if if saw an object is
falling down to Earth, it's the Earth is expanding towards it
and catches up with it as an acceleration at the Earth is
expanding at 4.9 metres per second and then with the
acceleration then it, it becomes 9.8, so 9.8 metres per second.
So that's compounding. It's it, it quickly multiplies.
So. So gravity is is not a force,
it's. It's just the geometry of
expansion because everything expands and.
How did you get to the 19 minute number?
So Mark Mccutchen has got equations, a new equation to
calculate gravity, which is you know the original distance
multiplied by the the the amount of time squared and multiplied
by the expansion rate. So it depends on the expansion
rate of matter and the radius of objects of the both objects and
then divided by the how to decrease in distance which is 1
minus expansion of maximum supplied by time again square.
So it's got new equations. And then his new equation is it
depends if he can calculate that everything doubles in size every
90 minutes. And he can calculate the the the
9.8 metres per second square acceleration downwards towards
Earth as cavity because because of the equation that he come up
with. And it's all based on the
expansion, the radius of the objects and as I say, the time
and the distance between them and all depending on the
expansion rate of matter. So this is how he was able to
come up with the 90. You can calculate how much time
it would take before an object actually takes to double in
size. And it's our universal because
expansion rate is universal everywhere, so every 19 minutes
everything doubles in size. What about Redshift?
Now redshifts. There's a redshift is based on
the the sound, the Doppler effect in sound.
They thought that light was the same, but the problem is that
it's not. And so when you see a red shift
in space, they think that it gives them the idea of what the
distances are, of how the object is, you know, the direction of
motion. And, and so, but it's not it,
you know, you can get a red shift just by having dust
between what you're observing in an object.
So it's, it's no indication of anything.
It's not really reliable. So we think that things they
that universe is expanding at an extraordinary rate and even
more. And we came up with the idea of
dark energy and and dark matter to explain all this.
All this is all gone. This was just fudge factors to
make Einstein still works to explain the cosmology of the
universe and it's pretty clear to everyone and you read the
headlines everywhere in the magazines.
We need a new theory because Einstein cannot explain any of
this. I'm sure they'll find a way to
fudge this or to come up with new equations on top of new
equations to be able to to, to still keep these these ideas.
But it's, it's clear that something is truly wrong here.
So to measure distances in space, the universe is not
expanding. It is expanding in the sense
that it will double in size around 10 minutes, but we cannot
see that because everything expending expends at the same
distances and we cannot see this expansion.
But from our point of view, it's not expanding.
Everything is mostly static in the universe and galaxies are
clustering together and that's just what you see when you're
looking at telescopes. So all this idea that.
This was Big Bang and everything is expanding even faster.
This is this is probably all wrong and it's all based on the
stretch of idea that is like the Doppler effect.
It is no indication of distance. It's not the no indication of
direction of motion and it's no indication of speed.
Basically, it may give you a good idea, but you know it.
There's nothing reliable about it and they are aware of that.
You know when they can do any calculations.
They tried out maybe 3 different ways by which they can measure
these things, but I think they've got it probably
completely wrong because and you know, once an idea is out there,
everybody's trying to explain it by any means.
And so, and then if you give them enough time and enough
millions of people working on this, they will come up with
something, you know. And so it's, it's like the moon,
the cavity on the moon. That's you had an interview
recently with someone said that probably the Apollo missions
were fake. So when we were on the moon,
they say that we calculated that, that the the cavity on the
moon was 1.6 metres per second square 1.62.
But I don't think, and this is 1/6 the cavity of the Earth.
But if you look at the moon, it's four times the, it's four
times smaller than the Earth. And if you look at its radius,
cavity on the moon should actually be two point 62.6
metres per second square, not 1/6.
It should be 1/4, a bit more than 1/4.
And so from orbit, from a perfect orbit around the the
moon, this is definitely what you will get.
But as soon as you're no longer in that perfect orbit, you know,
and you're falling down kind of a knock way or, you know,
straight down, you know, then it could be 1/6.
This despite the fact that it's it's one that it should be 1/4,
but I don't think it's likely. I think that's and that would
explain why half the unmanned missions of cash on the moon,
they were expecting 1/6 before they went.
And this is what they confirm. And if these missions were fake,
then obviously it was never verified.
And so I think it's probably 1/4.
And when you look at mathematics and Mark McCutcheon, when they
tried to their theories and their equations to try to
justify this, this what it would be on the moon, they they
assumed that 1.6 was correct, that it was 1/6.
And then they tried to explain it.
I think Miles explains it with his charged field, but Mark
Mccutchen explains it by the fact that it's 1/6 on the near
side, but it's actually 1/3 on the hidden side because the
density of the moon is totally different.
It's much more dense to close to the Earth because of the
original formation of the Earth moon system.
So it's so to all together added together 1/3 and 1/6 and then
1/4 at the edges, it gives you exactly that, a fourth of the
cavity of the earth. And the earth, the centre of of
cavity is more towards the centre because the earth was
spinning at a time but the moon was not spinning.
We always see the same face of the the moon.
So definitely there's a graduation degradation of of
density of matter gravity also once you're on the ground,
gravity is also when you're all you are being pushed up by the
object itself. So the density of matter is is
important then, but I don't think there will be that much
difference. I think that it's probably a
quarter all around, maybe a bit less on on near side and a bit
more on the other side because gravity goes from the centre of
mass. And if it's nearer our side then
it there will be more expansion towards of the matter towards
where the other side of the moon is.
But I think for miles it's probably 1/6 all around at 1.6
metres per second square all around.
I'm not sure. I'll have to double check that
people can check this on his website, but I think it's
probably a quarter. But you know, I can't be sure.
Maybe the appurmissions did happen, you know, I can't be
sure. What do you think?
Do you think they did happen?
To be honest, I don't know, you know, if if I had made a massive
research on it. It's, it's very difficult these
days to say anything because you need to research everything and,
you know, writing a book or to maybe.
Yeah, yeah. So I, I can't be sure.
But, you know, very, people are very convincing.
Many people are, they are, you know, expressing their fields
and they've, they've written all these things.
And he will explain a lot because it doesn't make any
sense that gravity would be 1/6. You know, originally they
thought it would be 1/6 because, you know, they, they, they,
they, they had the wrong mass. And this is all because we use
Newtons and in these equations which are based on mass.
But if everything is based on on expansion only there's a size
counts. Gravity is like from surface to
surface of expanding objects. It's no longer mass.
And that's why they had the wrong mass and they had the
wrong density as a result. So what happens is that they
thought that the moon was much less dense than it is, but it
doesn't make any sense. I think that probably the moon
is for the same kind of density than the Earth on not that much,
that much more. So even on the moon, I would
have thought that it would be one 1/4 so.
But you know, maybe the Chinese will verify it and tell us the
truth. So OK, So what you're suggesting
is that expansion theory is far more elegant in its explanation
of everything. Elegant.
That's a nice word to use. And for theories in physics,
which is definitely meaningless. You know, it's like string
theory has always been declared elegant.
I don't know what's elegant about it.
It's a nightmare. And it's not getting them any
kind of solutions anytime soon. It's doomed.
Sorry. Might just.
More. Pragmatic.
It's more mechanical in nature. So that's very important.
If you got a theory in physics, you know, you've got to have
these particles you have, you've got to be able to explain the
interactions and you've got to explain why things happen.
You know, it's like this natural orbit effect, for example, or
gravity distance is reducing. And you can visualise this
because you know, you can see the God's viewpoint behind the
scenes where you can see the expansion, you know, and you
know, that's one perspective because of your point.
The second is what we see now resulting in reality.
But there's a third perspective, which is once, once you've seen
the the Nevada motion effects, what is really happening then at
that point, because, you know, for the moon to orbit the Earth,
if they are expanding, we don't see this and it looks like the
the orbit is very stable. But you know, if the Earth is
expanding, technically the moon is also expanding and it's
moving into a non lodging spirals and all the orbits in
the solar systems as well. And This is why they are
expanding. And this is that's why they
doubled in size, you know, these objects and all these orbits and
all these systems. So there are different
perspectives to help you to actually visualise exactly what
is going on. So I don't know if it's, if we
could say that it's elegant and I'm not sure any theory in
physics is elegant. But does it make sense?
And then is it easy to understand?
Can a child understand it if he's 10 years old?
Yeah, probably. If I take the time to explain,
I'm pretty sure that they they would, and much easier as well
than an adult who actually knows about physics.
And U turn and Einstein, because then he gets very confused.
You know, when I was a kid, for me, when I look at particle
physics and when I look at the still physics, they were the
same. It was obviously the same.
I just had to figure out how. And it took me, you know, a
lifetime so to figure it out. But I have, you know, it is the
same thing. And once you've got these
theories and to explain things and the the contradict the fact
that, Oh no, particle physics is totally different from astral
physics. What you see in the night sky
has got nothing to do with what you see in a microscope or a
very powerful microscope if you want, but they are the same
thing. So electrons are, you know,
solar systems, galaxies are atoms and then cosmic molecules
are, you know, galaxies linked together.
And all of this must be there are lots of rogue planets and
rogue solar systems in the universe are outside the the
solar systems outside the galaxies.
And we have never paid attention to them because they are very
difficult to see and only solar systems can be seen.
And even then very difficult with the great difficulties.
So now it's a prediction, I'm telling you that there are those
things. So we should look at the at
these all they are linked together because all these
particles are linked together. And we can see that now there
are some discoveries of patterns in the universe with galaxies
that, you know, are in in strange shapes.
They obviously kind of link together.
How do you explain that? And what do they represent?
It's very difficult to see because we don't know because of
the distortion, because the path of light changes all the time.
Sometimes you can see an object twice because it has taken
different paths to get to you. And then you see it in different
locations. But there are patterns out
there. And so.
So yeah, this is this is interesting.
It sounds extremely theoretical, and at the risk of it becoming
sort of academic masturbation, what is the real world
application of of theories like this?
It's the entire physics, it's chemistry, it's every, it would
affect everything you know, from every point of view, you know.
So it is extremely important. It's how you explain physics and
the right equation to explain everything.
And you know how you build plane, for example, or do they
fly? You know, if the Earth is
expanding, they're constantly going higher.
How do you explain orbits for satellites, for example, you
know, in lower orbit they go faster.
And if you want them to go higher into a higher orbit, then
you know, you've got to accelerate.
But once they have accelerated, they suddenly go slower into
orbit around the Earth. How do you explain all this?
And you can explain that you know easily with the the the
geometry of expansion behind the scenes and so but.
Planes do fly. Sorry, but but hang on.
Hang on, but planes? Do fly.
They fly, yeah. But I mean to say is that if the
Earth isn't expanding, it's actually always at the same
altitude. But if the Earth is expanding,
it must be always going up upwards.
And so, you know, their, their wings are making sure that
they're always going up higher because they must go into
aspiring upward way to, to counteract the gravity of the
Earth. And so there's, there's a lot
and you know, what wire satellite can remain in the same
space as geostationary orbits, you know, above your house
without moving at all. And this is also the expansion
matter. It is actually in orbit and it
is moving, but it, it's in with the rotation of the Earth.
And then so as the Earth expands and rotate, the, the the
satellite is probably moving in a completely straight line, the
distance reduces, but they will always remain at the same place.
And then you will have to not sure of the effect again.
And then you can explain why actually it's at the same place.
Otherwise it's a total mystery. And so once you've got a better
understanding of everything, like the speed of light might be
accelerated, it changes everything from any kind of
invention about energy, you know, or because it's not just
light, it's also, you know, energy, it's magnetic fields and
electrical fields. And this is whole what
technology is about. And there could be a massive big
evolution, you know, like quantum entanglement is is not
exactly something that the it's completely misunderstood.
And you know, mathematics says there's they are not even they
aren't even interconnected. They are just sync on eyes like
clocks and these spin. And I think this is a very good
explanation, but quantum autonomy can also be explained
by the fact that if two particles are entangled, they're
actually they're connected together by a, you know, a big
field of particles between them over long distances.
And when one particles change, the other one as well.
So, you know, there's, there's a lot of different explanation.
They're built, they're trying to build computers on this and lots
of technology. So they better understand
exactly what they're dealing with.
You see. So it's, it's crucial and
chemistry as well, you know, it changes a lot of things.
So and all science, I would have thought.
What about vectors like wind? Vectors like.
Does wind Does wind expand also every 19 minutes?
Wind for so if you look at wind, it's made of air molecules.
So it all the molecules are definitely expanding
individually. All the particles when you got a
gas, you know, it's, it's very kind of chaotic.
Everything is kind of spaced out and it's going, it's it's
vibrating faster. And so, but what is interesting
about wind is that, well, the money they are molecules are
definitely expanding, but the Earth is expanding and in all
directions around the Earth. And so that's what creates the
pressure of the weather. So all the winds and all the
atmosphere is being pushed out and see if you got mountains and
if you got, you know, oceans or a different kind of geography
down below, it will push the wind in certain directions, you
see. So yes, that the wind itself
very interesting questions. Does the molecules of the gases
composing the wind are expanding and doubling in size around 10
minutes? But as I was saying that the
earth is expanding in every directions everywhere.
This is why the atmosphere is not lost into space.
And this is what creates the the weather under the pressure and
and the problems because you know of the different geography
of the earth like mountains and oceans or you know just normal
hills. So it it pushes the the wind in
different directions. How can I follow your work?
So if people do a search on on sub stack or new medium, I've
got a lot of articles there. A lot of my chapters are free to
to be read, to be read, all the most important ones.
Also I've got a website whichisthemarginal.com the
marginal so THEMAR ginal.com. So from there there are links
everywhere else. I'm not that.
I'm not that much on social media.
I do have all the accounts, but I'm I'm not using it.
Otherwise I wouldn't be doing any work.
I don't know, Elon Musk. Elon Musk does it.
He's always and Trump, you know, are they always tweeting?
Do they do anything with their days?
I don't know. I can't pronounce your name in
your native language. I'm going to say, Roland
Tremblay, thank you for joining me in the trenches.
No, thank you very much. It was a pleasure.