Excerpts from the upcoming book:

A) Math Liberation:

The Massless Brain of Modern Science

Rule #1 when analyzing Theoretical Physics: ignore the math and use logic.

The Big Bang, Lambda Cold Dark Matter (ΛCDM), and the Standard Model of Physics rely heavily on mathematical equations that “quantify” and “qualify” things that have never been proven to exist empirically. They violate Francis Bacon’s method, eschew Ockham's simplicity, ignore Descartes’ epistemology and disregard Hume’s treatises on infinite regression and causality.

I don't care how elegant an equation is or how many superscripts or subscripts it has if it violates the rules of logic. It is simply wrong if it tells us that something can be both "A" and "Not A" at the same time. Theoretical Physics is math to explain how "nothing" can affect ANYTHING. They ignored Aristotle and modern singer Billy Preston, who sang a song about it, "Nothing From Nothing Leaves Nothing."

No matter how many Greek letters or subscripts an equation has, if it starts with "nothing" birthing anything, it is just elegant nonsense. "Nothing" can't do anything. "Nothing" cannot have properties other than "nothingness." ...

Science nicked itself with Occam’s Razor and dropped the scientific method on the floor during the 19th century. It has never been retrieved. Man’s hubris taught him, “We are smarter than the ancients because we are modern.” That is the only reasoning they needed to reject things that had already been proven long ago.

I refer to some of the Standard Model of Physics equations as "Mathmyth" or "Glory Math." Mathmyth is math based solely on other math or unproven forces and actors. Glory Math is math made difficult to intimidate outsiders and keep the "good ol' boys of physics club" exclusive.

Math writes its own rules without need of reality. Unlike most of the things humans deal with daily, math always yields correct answers when we play by the rules. It is a set of tautologies that are given to us. It has no meaning outside of itself. Somewhere in history, a certain group of people decided that reality can be determined by math. This is pure delusion. The universe existed long before there was anyone to enumerate it.

Math is meaningless unless it refers to something else. The only thing it can prove is itself. To wit: Math can prove 2 + 2 = 4, but it can’t prove any “2s” or “4s” actually exist anywhere except in concept. It is useful as a measuring tool, but it does not shape reality. Math is symbolic logic, not a determinant of what reality is.

Math is only useful in measuring matter and motion. Arithmetic cannot quantify an idea or qualify a distant galaxy. Math can’t tell you anything about why the universe is the way it is. Only the folly of man can do that.

Can you show me minus four pounds? Can you give me a pi? Do 2 fish + 2 pairs of shoes = 4 dozen elephants? Of course not. This is ample demonstration that math only has meaning when it refers to itself or when applied to things that can actually be observed, identified, and quantified.

There is more than one way to prove that math is just a “number game.” Base 8, base 10, base 12, base 20, and base 60 prove math is just a tool, not a universal truth. All systems give a different value for 1111 items and all of them are true. Different numerical bases (e.g., base 8, 10, 12) are human conventions for representing quantities. In base 10, 1111 items are “1111”; in base 8, they’re “2127”; in base 12, they’re “787.” All are valid descriptions of the same quantity, just expressed differently.

Zero was not created as a number until 628 AD (Brahmagupta); placeholders occurred earlier (300 BCE Babylonians), but the full concept of zero was Indian and it spread to Europe ~1200 AD. This proves math's evolution as a tool.

The Egyptians built the pyramids (c. 2600–2500 BCE) without the mathematical concept of zero as a number, relying instead on hieroglyphic numerals and fractions for measurements and geometry. Though they did use a symbol (nfr, meaning "beautiful" or "complete") as a placeholder for zero balances in accounting texts by around 1740 BCE, it wasn't treated as a calculable value.

Stonehenge (c. 3000–2000 BCE) was similarly constructed in prehistoric Britain without any known zero concept, using basic counting and alignment techniques tied to astronomy and seasons, long before zero emerged as a placeholder in Babylonian systems (~400-300 BCE) or as a full number in Indian mathematics (628 CE).

These feats highlight how advanced engineering and science thrived without zero, underscoring its status as a later human invention rather than a fundamental necessity.

This shows math is a flexible tool, not an absolute truth about reality. It is nothing but math. It can only prove itself by definition. In the same way “12 is a dozen,” “blue is a color,” and “an attorney is a lawyer” are true, “2 + 2 = 4” tells us nothing about the actual nature of elephants, colors, or lawyers.

Cannons worked before ballistic math did. Any consistent system of math could have been applied to it, and it would have been accepted. Just as the gun doesn’t care about math, neither does the universe. Math should only be used when it can be applied to things that can be detected.

People who rely on math make tests to support what they want to find. There is no proof a big bang or inflation happened, that the universe is infinite or expanding, that time “started,” or that time even exists at all. If math determines reality, then why do our meteorological predictions fail so frequently? Math can’t even model last week’s weather effectively, how can they possibly model events from 13.8 billion years ago that happened outside our current laws of physics? If math shapes reality, why haven’t we found any of the 4th through 15th dimensions?

Math is only good when quantifying measurable things, like the minute of angle required for something a mere 10,000 light-years away—in our cosmic living room—to hit the Earth with Supernova ejecta, a staple of the Stellar Nucleosynthesis delusion. I cover this in the section on "Matter."

Physicists are square dancing exponentially into infinity.

The Standard Model (SM) elevates math to a divine status, using equations to "prove" unobservable entities like quantum fields, dark energy, or extra dimensions without empirical anchors. This violates Bacon's inductive method (observation first, math second), leading to circular logic: E=mc² "quantifies" mass-energy equivalence, but c is inferred from EM constants assumed in the model. Inflation's math fixes flatness/horizon problems, but its parameters (e.g., 10-32 s duration) are tuned post-hoc to match data, not predicted.

Theoretical Physics made millions of people shun science with their fantasy constructs. How many great inventions never hit the table because people who couldn't understand E = MC kaka and all the rest of it never pursued careers in science? The masses weren't dumb. They couldn't understand Lambda and the Standard Model because it is incomprehensible at its core.

B) Off the Clock: Time

The Intangible Backbone of Modern Science

The first crucial concept in the UFL is that of timelessness. The second is: Time is just another form of math.

Time is neither relative nor observer-dependent.

Time does not exist independently of matter and motion. Matter cannot be expressed as anything but matter. Motion cannot be expressed as anything but motion. Time is a measure of matter in motion, not a thing that is separate. Therefore, matter and motion are necessary to define the world around us, and time is not.

Without both matter and motion, time is meaningless. It is just another form of math, self-referential and tautologically consistent, but without effect on the real world. Like any other form of math, time is a measuring device and nothing more. If Time is a real thing hand me a slice, or at least show me a picture. If all matter is divisible and spacetime is a “thing,” then give me a piece. If time exists independently, can it bring me more presents last Christmas? My stocking was pretty empty. I will gladly admit to being wrong when someone gives me a few decades of my life back. Can theoretical physicists give me that?

All formulas that employ time can use its equivalent in matter and motion. Conversely, time can only be explained using matter and motion, making it a dependent, human construct. In “Physics,” Aristotle (c. 384-322 BCE) viewed time as a measure of change (motion), not an independent entity; “time is the number of motion in respect of ‘before’ and ‘after.’”

There is NO time like NOW! because there is only one time: now. The universe runs on its own time, U.S.T.; Universe Standard Time, which always shows "now o’clock."

“Time” is the universe’s motion, and it can’t be stopped, slowed, or hastened. Nothing any person or race can do will ever change the progression of the universe. The universe doesn’t care how stoned the observer gets or how fast they can imagine going; it runs on its own schedule. There are only three dimensions and only one frame. It doesn't care about a human prejudice towards symmetry.

The only thing that is not possible now, and which never will be, is time travel, and its dependent variations such as diverging timelines and alternate realities. Time does not exist as a tangible thing, so there is no way to travel in time and there is no way for it to split.

If one was able to displace oneself in time one would find themselves in the cold void of space as the Earth either would have not reached the point in space one left from or have moved past the point one left from. Unless one can rewind the entire universe, one can't go back in time. "Time" is a one-way ticket to the future, and everyone is moving into the future at the exact same rate. The progression of "time" is the one thing all beings and objects in the universe share.

Time cannot be divided, multiplied, added, or subtracted. Time is not alive, it can neither reproduce nor self reduce. Squaring time is the most ridiculous concept in all of science.

Almost every other trope in science fiction is available now with current tech, except particle transportation and wormholes - which can only be created with vast amounts of power, far beyond our current means.

The Big Bang and Lambda make “theoretical physics” live up to its name, as none of it is warranted in logic or empirical evidence. I will explain the entire universe without a single Lambda or SM theory or law.

It only takes the slightest application of logic to disprove multiple frames. If accelerating at different speeds created different frames (per GR's equivalence principle, where gravity mimics acceleration) then the entire universe would be shattered into trillions of singular frames.

If accelerating caused frame changes, people on the same planet would vanish into separate frames, as the people closer to the poles accelerate at different rates than the ones at the equator. In fact, sections of large planets would split themselves into separate frames along latitude lines.

We are all accelerating at different rates depending on how close to center of the planet, solar system, galaxy, etc., we are. We accelerate variably (Earth's spin: equator ~1,670 km/h vs. poles ~0; orbital ~30 km/s; galactic ~220 km/s; all layered with local gravity gradients), based on our orbital position and galactic rotation so frames multiply infinitely.

If acceleration spawns unique frames, the universe fragments: every atom, every galaxy arm, every light switch flip creates its own "now," with particles zipping into private timelines. Turn on a bulb and photons "accelerate" out, entering a "different frame"—goodbye present visibility; hello solipsistic chaos where no two observers agree on causality or simultaneity.

The Standard Model (SM) and its extensions, particularly general relativity (GR), treat time as a fundamental dimension intertwined with space in “spacetime,” where it can be dilated, curved, or even “traveled” under extreme conditions. This lacks empirical data. There is no direct measurement of time as a “thing.”

All things that exist occupy space and have dimensions. Time does neither. It is inferred from motion, creating circular logic. Time is defined by change, change is defined by time. Illogical conclusions abound: Squaring time in equations like kinetic energy (KE = ½mv², v = distance/time) or E=mc² (c as speed, time in denominator) yields absurdities - how can the fastest anything can go be squared?

Treating time as a separate thing and adding (t) to formulas that do not require them has set science back 160 years. Maxwell united magnetism and electricity creating a Frankenstein monster, (c), that has reproduced and brought more illogical and unnecessary concepts such as: a beginning of time, a singularity, a big bang, and/or expansion. None of them have ever been proven to be correct, meaningful, or empirically grounded.

The ultimate proof that time is just a tool is called Daylight Saving Time, and it happens across most of America 2 times annually. Convenience allows us to set our clocks however we want, and it never affects the rotation of the planet or its orbit around the sun.

I do not have an issue with the use of time or (t) as long as it isn’t combined with more movement-related variables/constants, but some SM formulas invest "time" up to four instances in a single equation and then square it?!?!? This is unwarranted and incomprehensible.

In the Standard Model (SM) of physics, time (t) is often compounded within equations - embedded in variables like velocity (v = distance/time, time once), acceleration (a = v/t = distance/time², time twice), and then squared or raised further in derived formulas. This “invests” time multiple times (up to 4 or more implicitly) before squaring, creating a fantasy construct from a mere yardstick.

Below, I provide clear examples from kinematics, energy, relativity, orbital mechanics, and Schrödinger's Equation showing how time gets layered and squared. These illustrate the crutches SM limps along on: treating time as fundamental rather than a proxy for Matter (M) in motion. Squaring: Implicit in momentum terms; SM uses this for ‘time-dependent’ probabilities, yet Wheeler-DeWitt drops t entirely for gravity, exposing the inconsistency.

These examples show SM’s pattern: start with time in velocity (once), layer in acceleration (twice), derive higher terms (energy/orbits), and square-compounding up to 4+ investments before the final t². The use of (t) is fine to denote matter in motion once, but disastrous when mixed with motion variables and squared, leading to illusions like warped spacetime.

Empirical Data on SM Time/Frame Failures:

Raw measurements from 2025 highlight unproven multi-frames, dilation, extra dimensions—tensions without resolution, demanding patches.

⦁ Hubble Tension (Time-Linked Expansion Discrepancy): CMB-derived H₀: 67.4 ± 0.5 km/s/Mpc. Local supernova: 73.04 ± 1.04 km/s/Mpc—5-6 sigma gap. DESI 2025 on Coma cluster: Reinforces ~9% divergence, no bias resolution. Logic: Uniform time-expansion should match; forces ad hoc dark energy tweaks.

⦁ Time Dilation Tests/Anomalies: Muon lifetime experiments (2025 bounds): Lorentz factor ~29 (muon speed 0.9994c), but deformed dilation bounds show anomalies in crystal oscillators under force (piezoelectric errors up to 10^{-15} s in acceleration tests). No direct independent time measure—dilation inferred from decay rates (e.g., 2.2 µs at rest vs. extended in flight).

⦁ Extra Dimensions/Frames Null Results: LHC 2025 limits on extra dimension radius R: <10^{-18} m from gravitational deviations (PDG list). Fat-brane mUED model: ATLAS data sets bounds >1 TeV on Kaluza-Klein masses—no signals. String theory tests: No exotic particles (e.g., single discovery could falsify); HL-LHC upgrades yield nulls in energy patterns. Decades of colliders: Zero evidence for >3 dimensions or multi-frames.

CMB - Comic Movement Backwards

This is the most ridiculous concept in all of cosmology. Claiming to know what happened 13.8 billion years ago by looking at radiation today is incomprehensibly stupid. It is like going to the All England Lawn Tennis Club, taking a selfie at center court and saying, "I can tell you who won the 1934 ladies doubles championship at Wimbledon from this picture." Inferring a cosmic startup from CMB is like taking a picture of a drop of water and inferring what lies at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, or handing someone a trilobite when they ask for a DNA sample.

It is mind-numbingly imbecilic. For all they know there was no cosmic microwave background the day before they measured.

In fact, per their own theories, their act of observing may have caused the Comic Movement Backwards. The microwaves may have been lounging at the Cosmic Cabana and one of them said, “Hey, those guys are getting ready to observe us. Time to photobomb!”

Furthermore, per SM everything stops at absolute zero, so above absolute zero is a minimal operating condition, per them. They are wrong, of course. Why would a body that is already in orbital motion stop? Wouldn’t the fact that there IS orbital motion keep the universe from being 0K? Did the microwaves emitted 13.7 billion years ago have nothing better to do than hang out in this part of the universe instead of “boldly going where no imaginary particle has gone before?”

A "state of entropy" cannot exist because matter is in motion. Moving matter vibrates. Vibration heats space. Is this all so difficult to understand?