our only hope is that space is infinite.




about my writings and videos — errors and vocabulary.

i do notice many grammatical errors in my writings, after reading them again, but if the errors aren’t changing the meaning i intended to convey then in most cases i leave the errors unedited.. because i have more important things to do. as a writer i have spent on some of my books so much time in seeking out errors, reading the books over and over and over again, that if i count whole the spent time on editing out the errors then i could have used that time in getting deeper understanding in one entire field of science. so, this is my excuse. i am not a native speaker of english — i began learning it properly only in exile, after leaving my country some 20 years ago. thus, my vocabulary is a bit limited too. it is especially clear while watching my videos — i don’t have time to edit videos, so i shoot them as is, in one cut and from first time, and that creates a pressure to find the right words fast.. and thus the many general substitution words instead of precise vocabulary. to recall a precise word for something i may need more than few seconds, which on video would be a too long silence. actually i write more fluently, not faster – just more easily, because i’m not under the pressure to get it all right from the first attempt, and if necessary i can pause to find the right word from dictionary, or to verify a word to make sure it is exactly what i mean, not ambiguous in the context. during video recording, if i realize that the exact meaning of a word needs to be verified, even if i seem to be knowing the word well, i prefer to use a general substitution word, where possible.. if not, then i explain the same thing over in other words, or clarify the subject in different ways. i do correct my writings sometimes, the next day usually, if i feel that a sentence may be confusing, to make the precise point, to convey my way of thinking more clearly. thus, if you’re a subscriber and have received an email, then it will be a good idea to visit my blog and read the latest version of an article. small irrelevant mistakes of grammar won’t grant my time to log into my blog, to wait the blog to download on my slow android device and disappearing internet connection, to edit, save etc. — each correction may take 5 to 10 minutes. (when working online my tablet also keeps freezing and crashing, several times a day, like under attack by hackers. this could make an editing of a single symbol in the blog more like a half an hour mission. knowing that i always work on several devices at time, and the restarting period of a crashed device i use for working on other devices, continuing to listen a lecture for example. this makes the 5-10 minute loss on editing a fair estimate). now you understand why i leave so many errors in. i do notice them.. but i came to compromise that i rather learn new things than spend this time on insignificant corrections on my blog.

anti-gravity explained.

if gravity turns out to be a statistical phenomenon, then it means that anti-gravity is possible.. you only need to make particles in an object to make vibrate in certain direction more often, in a concentrated way, or in a sharper way, like in inertia-driven experimental engines — this approach is proven and demonstrated in macroscopic scale long ago — technically it is possible, but slow and ineffective for a practical use. in energy efficiency it is tens of times better than internal combustion engines though, but as i said, slow, and also the mechanical elements wear out way faster. anyway, back to anti-gravity. the wrapped space around particles aren’t working, in my view, like a waterfall effect, like it is pictured in warped space pictures — it is simply a larger space in a more compact area as compared to normal space — you can move in and out of the wrapped/warped space freely, without an effort. the statistically more frequent vibation of particles towards the larger space in compact area, which pushes objects in direction of that warped space, can be stopped by equalizing the vibration. by moving the inertia of the vibration of all the particles in an object into desired direction, the whole object can be moved effortlessly in that chosen direction, without any inertia, because each particle takes the effect of inertia onto itself, including in living organisms. i don’t know how exactly it can be achieved — i am by training a mechanical engineer and my knowledge is limited in many fields necessary for this feat. in any case, learning many sciences in general, i clearly picture in my mind the physical processes that, if technically achievable, could create anti-gravity devices without inertia. the inertia will still be as usual within an object with many separate parts, like for example a human moving around in a flying vehicle, but the ‘gravitational’ inertia will be eliminated within the whole object, while for outside viewers the object will be moving around in space freely in direction where the internal inertia of particles will be directed. of course only, if gravity turns out to be a statistical phenomenon, not a physical force. the wrapped space around particles will solve many mysteries in science, as i picture it in my mind, like orbitals of electrons, ‘spin’ of particles which is theoretically faster than light, and perhaps others. as not a specialist i can’t say much more about it, but i picture in my mind that a wrapped space around particles makes many physical theories, which i have learned about, way more easily explainable.

there’s one man, John Hutchison, who had achieved anti-gravity of objects by vibrating them with different frequencies. before it didn’t make any sense to me because i believed that gravity is a physical force, but now it makes total sence. i had posted some of his videos on my old youtube account, which i discontinued years ago after too many videos had been blocked and taken down by youtube. maybe you can still find some of the videos there — here’s is the old account..
..the ‘design’ on the abandoned youtube channel isn’t random, it is an example of the cryptography method which i have developed and published a book about..

testing the theory of gravity.

it should be relatively easy to test the theory of gravity as statistical phenomenon. it can be done here on earth, and even better in microgravity conditions of a space station, either international one, chinese one or any other in the future — maybe even on a specially designed satellite where surrounding gravitational effect of the satellite to the test objects is minimized. two objects with non-symmetrical shape must be left out to hang in close proximity to each other and their gravitational pull must be measured with different sides turned to each other, while the centers of masses of these objects must remain at the same distance during each measurement. when the larger surface areas are closer then the gravitational pull of the objects must be a tiny bit stronger, regardless that the centers of masses of the objects are at the same distance. the particles in the objects keep vibrating in every direction randomly, but in the direction of the distorted-enlarged-twisted-wrapped space they must in average be vibrating more often, which will create the ‘gravitational pull’.. or to say it more correctly — the ‘statistical vibrational push’. the weak, fast, many-directional vibration of particles in the objects, compared to inter-molecular forces, won’t make the whole object to wobble in every direction randomly, but creates the average weak uniform push towards the warped space. for reference what do i mean with the warped space and particles as tiny wrapped pieces of space creating the warping of space, view my video where i explain the theory, about how do i picture it all in my mind..
..no need to search for the ‘gravitons’ in attempt to explain the ‘gravitational force’ — there’s none — it is all the effect of bending of the space, coming from the very existence of matter, and the resulting statistical probability of bigger freedom of movement of particles towards the warped space of other nearby particles, both in small scale and big scale. the statistical effect is very small compared to the electromagnetic and other forces, but in large quantities of particles it has a significant effect, especially over large distances.

more on gravity-entropy relation.

i was planning to make another video to express my visualisation of gravity better, with more precise vocabulary, but now i found an article on the same subject, from 2011, which explains it all better than i could do. the difference is that from my visualisation on this matter it implies that all particles carry tiny wrapped space with them. and of course there’s a fact that i cannot express it mathematically what i picture in my mind, due to lack of training in this special mathematics. i’m using words which best convey my understanding, but math is definitely more capable of experessing reality, because some mathematical relations are impossible to picture in mind the way we are used to see the world, especially in quantum reality.

in the article you can read the following..

One of the most exciting ideas in modern physics is that gravity is not a traditional force, like electromagnetic or nuclear forces. Instead, it is an emergent phenomenon that merely looks like a traditional force. This approach has been championed by Erik Verlinde at the University of Amsterdam who put forward the idea in 2010. He suggested that gravity is merely a manifestation of entropy in the Universe, which always increases according to the second law of thermodynamics. This causes matter distribute itself in a way that maximises entropy. And the effect of this redistribution looks like a force which we call gravity.

read the full article.. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/425220/experiments-show-gravity-is-not-an-emergent-phenomenon/

the article concludes.. “Experiments on gravitational bound states of neutrons unambiguously disprove the entropic origin of gravitation.”

.. in my opinion there’s just something missing in the theory, because for me the entropic origin of gravitational ‘force’ totally makes sense, by visualising how it works. the missing part could be the wrapped space around particles.