The E-Book Discovery

When we first heard of the theories of an alternative universe we were intrigued and through the leads supplied to us we followed the many message board postings by the author of this e-book. We even posted the author questions pertaining to the universe and its mysteries without him knowing who we were or what our intentions were.

To our surprise we learned that not only did he give us feasible answers but that he had also written a book, this book then we requested and he kindly donated it to us to our surprise. Upon reading the book which we did several times over we found that the author having taken this alternative road opposite to what we have all gladly accepted as being a reliable scientific explanation, the author had to class himself as eccentrically insane.

His reason was because he sees a universe created by science as far too complex and his alternative views would at times contradict scientific observation and experiment. He saw a universe dominated by General Relativity which portrayed phenomena, he rightly states that if scientific observation was on the correct path to understanding the universe then the phenomena such as black holes -big bang-expanding-universe and gravity would not exist.

Gravity not existing was one of our hardest bricks to swallow and accept, after all we see it doing its work everyday how then can it not exist. Well we read the book as stated several times over and he does give a feasible explanation for gravity even at the atomic level, this may seem hard to grasp but he does actually explain how a stellar cloud collapses without the effects of gravity.

From here he manages to link together the entire universe, he explains its structure its expansion, how stars burn how galaxies are formed and how they acquired their structures and he even explains why science perceives black holes and tells us what they really are, this even leads us back to what quasars are.

We now understand this author's alternative universe and admit that at first upon hearing of his solitary quest we really thought he was just another crank, he soon changed our views with his ideas and alternative views on the universe, this is what he said to us upon asking him ( how can he justify his alternative universe when so many well respected individuals have qualifications in astrophysics and cosmology etc ),

"I have a task far harder than Einstein had in explaining General Relativity and today it is far easier for people to ignore what I explain in my book rather than give me credit for such a simple explanation of our universe. The truth is I do not particularly care what qualifications anyone has in astrophysics or cosmology, these people have acquired their degrees based on laws that have been created by scientific research and observation, if the experiments coincide with observation then I can understand why a person like myself would be classed as a crank, scientific prediction is hard to overthrow because General Relativity would seem to leave no doors open. A fact that must not be overlooked is that General Relativity has been based on shaky ground, I for one do not see how space and time can become space-time, i.e. space is totally separate from time, time cannot be proven to exist, you may have a watch but that does not prove time to exist, everything we measure time with is based on calendar time and whilst you all have been made to believe time to slow down then I find it difficult to accept for the simple reason that the atomic clock tests or the water tower tests never accounted for the fact that over a period of 24 hours each of these tests would have shown that the clocks would have reached the same starting points again hence showing no proof what so ever of time slowing down or existing. The atomic clock test has never accounted for the speed relative to the frame of reference, i.e. if the moving clock has an area of 1000 miles to cover then it leaving starting point (A ) would take an hour to reach its finishing point ( B ) this means it had to travel at 1000 mph within its frame of reference. Now the stationary clock situated at starting point ( C ) at ground level and inline with the frame of reference to starting point ( A ) would remain there just ticking time away, its frame of reference however has to coincide with the events taking place so its distance apart from its finishing point ( D ) can be anything, the thing is that it would have to relate to whatever speed and time it would take to get to point ( D ) if it became part of the two moving clocks experiment, i.e. if its point ( C ) distance was 100 miles apart from the finishing point ( D ) then the stationary clock upon becoming part of the two moving clocks experiment would have to travel at 100 mph to get to the finishing point ( D ) in an hour."

"This shows that the frame of reference relative to both clocks are in perfect synchronisation and from which a time reading could be taken relying on a proper calculated experiment taking into consideration the distances and the speeds of both moving clocks which were not considered in the atomic clock tests ever, this I guarantee because if you accept that the above mentioned frame of reference is in synchronisation then you carry the test out again using nothing but your mental thought experiment, if you can do this then try bringing down the moving clock without changing its speed, how long then would it take to reach its finishing point, yes it would still take an hour but its height has changed and so has its distance compared to the stationary clock, the stationary clock has not changed only the moving clock has, its time reading would then be out of touch with the frame of reference because speed, time and distance are not synchronised anymore for the moving clock hence a reading from this clock would be slow."

"The result being that if you were bringing down the moving clock from a height of a 1000 feet to a mere 500 feet then its frame of reference has a shorter distance to reach the reference line or point where the distance between the stationary clock and its finishing point ( D ) has unchanged, the stationary clock still has an hour to travel the 100 miles at 100 mph if both clocks were to move but the height of the moving clock being reduced means that in an hour the clock at ground level would finish at point ( D ) whilst the clock on the jet plane would have travelled 500 miles beyond the frame of reference in an hour, this being the last half hour hence whilst both clocks moving or not would cover their corresponding distances in an hour, a reading taken from the clock on the jet plane after being brought down to an altitude of 500 feet would show a slow time as the frame does not correspond to a proper scientific experiment so if anyone out there working in science would care to put this to the test then taking into consideration that time - speed - distance would all have to be synchronised well go on prove me wrong !."

Well we tried to prove him wrong on paper and low and behold his contradicting alternative explanation could not be proven wrong ! We are still waiting for someone in science to put this through a proper scientific test yet nobody has come forward. It makes one wonder the integrity of General Relativity and Special Relativity when such a simple intuitive reply seems to throw doubt on what we are lead to believe as the two gods of science. We found it in a sense offensive because it makes us look stupid to have followed these gods and yet even now many still do due to the prediction that General Relativity seems to give as a most accurate measurement. What the author states here when asked how does his theory overcome the prediction of General Relativity when so many machines and even the computers that run on its foundation justify his theory when he can see as others do that these machines would not exist otherwise, his reply was pretty simple but left us scratching our heads once again and putting pen to paper.

"I can understand the complications of these two gods which every newcomer to science will no doubt sometime or other have to confront what they seem to think carry a loop hole and this is the nitty gritty of science, trying to understand what seems to go against our human comprehension. Those that see nothing else no other alternative or theory are the ones that feel offended, they have accepted General Relativity and Special Relativity yet those working in science that understand the complications imposed by these two gods find these counter intuitive and it is here where the cause lies for those astrophysicists and cosmologists find the attraction of their given subjects so appealing and I would tend to agree with them. Take these two tests to paper, I have already explained the atomic clock test so here is another version. If a train is moving at light speed along a rail track and a passenger decided to sit on the middle of the roof of its middle carriage looking into a right angled mirror what would he see if a lightning bolt struck the front of the track and the rear of the track just when the train reached the mid point or middle section of the track making also the two lightning bolts strike an equal distance apart."

"Now you can think about this as much as you want, the fact is that we are lead to believe that as the train is moving towards the lightning bolt at the front of the track then the passenger on the roof would see this lightning bolt first in his mirror, and because he is moving towards the lightning bolt at the front of the track at light speed he would not see the lightning bolt at the rear. The obvious reason being because the light from the rear lightning strike whilst it is heading towards the passenger never really catches up with his right angled mirror unless the train were travelling slightly slower."

"OK that seems a simple enough explanation to understand this Einsteinian concept where simultaneous events are not always the same for different observers, however what I contradict is the obvious fact what an observer situated on the side of the track actually sees makes the situation far more different than what we are lead to believe otherwise. Whilst we have been told that all things seem different to different observers especially if one remains stationary and the other is moving, then lets throw in a little doubt on this by introducing the stationary observer at the side of the track and using him to contradict this Einsteinian concept. If the stationary observer sees both lightning strikes whilst he is situated at the mid point or the middle section at the side of the track, then it seems obvious to me that the light coming from both lightning strikes would also reach the moving observer on top of the moving middle carriage when he reaches the mid point at the same time as the two lightning bolts strike. There seems little need to ponder on this because it is self explanatory, if the stationary observer can see both lightning bolts strike the track then the moving observer situated on top of the carriage would also see the same phenomena occurring !. Whilst I have no doubt that many of you will suddenly put pen to paper to test this out I shall leave you all my second thought experiment test, this time I refer to the tower test where a clock upon the top of the tower is supposedly running at a slower time than a clock at the bottom of the tower."

"If you can extend your imagination and do away with the tower then we can imagine a clock situated in space half way between the earth and the sun and the bottom clock resting upon the earth's soil. The space clock being situated half way to earth would mean that we could synchronise it at four minutes past 12pm, this allows for the time light has taken to reach the space clock from the sun. The earth clock would then be recorded as being synchronised at 12pm, this then explains that because it takes light eight minutes to reach earth from the sun then the space clock would read as stated four minutes past 12pm and the earth clock would read 12pm."

"Now I can understand that the scientific Einsteinian concept of a clock running slower at the top of a tower is what seems to be the case due to scientific observation and experiment, what must not be ignored is that time cannot be proven to exist hence whilst we may have been made to believe that a clock at the top of a tower or mountain or even in space or even a twin remaining younger whilst he resides at the top of a mountain or on a light speed journey to and from a distant star, then we cannot expect the test to be correct even whilst it may seem correct on paper as we fail to notice a simple answer and explanation."

"This is that the earth clock and the space clock would show the same synchronised time again in twenty four hours, ie both clocks would show that no time slow down has occurred, this you can apply to the twin living at the top of a mountain or on the light speed journey."

"I can add to this that if you were on the sun looking at me on the earth and me looking at you, then which one is now, you could even change the earth clock time to 12.04pm and the space clock to 12.08 pm and in twenty four hours they would again read the same positions from whence they started from, so send yourself off to the Andromeda galaxy with a clock and look at me looking at you with a clock, which one is now, send yourself off to the far ends of the universe which one is now, there is no way that time can be proven to exist and whilst it may be hard for us to accept that time does not exist due to it being nothing more than a man made measurement of events taking place, then this goes against our common sense because there is nothing more obtrusively obvious than for us to notice time passing us by."

"Einstein may seem to have been a great scientist or theorist and he enjoyed wearing his laurels but I fail to notice where his theories actually give a proper scientific explanation, his introduction of mass warping space is certainly in my eyes one of his greatest blunders for I recognise space as being empty space and has no material existence other than the particles and matter that float about in this universal vacuum. If mass could warp space like the sun is supposedly capable of doing then many questions arise from this, such as why is it that particles and mass can wander through the universe if say space was made of jelly a material substance that we intuitively know exists and can be distorted by placing a ball bearing in its centre, if then the ball bearing was surrounded by marbles would they move about in this space jelly, what about gravity where does this fit in, well obviously gravity would have attracted the entire universe together into a huge jelly if space was made of something and hence I believe gravity does not exist otherwise if our intuition remains based on the Einsteinian concept of mass warping space we would not be here, we just simply would not exist!"

"Where does my theory justify itself against General Relativity and Special Relativity you asked, well I have had that put to me as a similar question before, this computer is thought to be partly in creation due to the Einsteinian concept of quantum physics and what my theory states is that everything is governed by light, you take away this light and this computer and everything else including the universe would not exist."

We finally asked him the question that has become one of the most asked questions in cosmology, how did the universe begin and he replied.

"Look I say what I mean, I do not baffle anyone with physics math, this only serves to confuse the layman, if you want to believe that the universe started with a big bang and since then the universe is classed as a mathematical universe and can be predicted and measured well let me know when a precise calculation has been found for the beginning of the universe. It is far too easy to say that nobody knows unless somebody was there to see it happen, and it is even easier to accept a big bang beginning when the hypothesis is backed by the news networks and extremely good graphics documentaries, the big bang concept is very misleading and confronts directly against human comprehension. I doubt very much if many of these intelligent astrophysicists or cosmologists actually agree with a primeval beginning, it is just too ridiculous to believe that the entire mass of the universe once resided in a mere speck of dust, to think that the zillions of tons of matter can originate from an area smaller than a pin head well who's the crank!"

"If we take into consideration that this big bang was created due to the density of gravity then it fails to explain how this gravity managed to create the universe we see today for the simple reason that this gravity had only one shot to do it with, what I mean by this is that if you had a gun and a lion was coming to attack you and your gun only had one bullet then you only have one shot at the lion, if you miss to the left you are dead, if you miss to the right again you are dead, hence I fail to grasp how the big bang could become accepted to explain the creation we have today and the precious delicate cycle of life."

"In other words if you had too much gravity then all matter would have been dispersed too far apart and there would not of been enough time for particles to fuse hence no atoms would exist to create the stars or the matter that even we are made of hence the result being no life, if we had little gravity then again the same problem arises, we would not exist because the gravity required was not enough to expand the universe or to later create particles for atoms to form."

"What we do have today however is that the big bang portrays a universe that was supposedly created by the density of gravity getting it right first time with one shot, I find this hard to believe and too much of a coincidence. Further to this one need only think that if this big bang was the beginning of time and space then obviously it seems we have a direct contradiction because the primeval atom can only had existed if it resided in a time prior to the big bang in order to have existed in the first place. We further can add the greatest thorn in the side to this big bang beginning by asking if the universe is expanding then what is it expanding into, sure we are told that the universe is everything and that there is no outside, again such answers serve no purpose other than to confuse and baffle the layman. The fact is that if the universe is everything then science is contradicting itself for not only would it be impossible for the universe to expand when it is everything, but it would actually be impossible for the universe to expand into an area that supposedly is not there, we cannot carry on being deceived by stupid remarks and hypothesis, this is not proper scientific understanding. The reality of all this is that science only perceives and portrays a complex universe that it has itself created based on its confusing edifice filled with long disposed laurels, these laurels were worn by great men but they themselves having to abide by scientific laws and beliefs they were not then to blame for leaving us a complex universe that today I see as being totally on the wrong side of the tracks for if it were correct then the phenomena we are baffled by today would not exist. The universe is flat because the expansion cycle finished millions of years ago, the way in which the universe expanded is far different to what is thought today, we may have convincing proof due to scientific observation and experiment but I tell you now that Hubble was wrong, he has been lead to believe the universe is expanding due to the light received from distant variable stars, I understand this, anyone could have made the same mistake but Hubble's can of worms does have an alternative explanation."

"We simply cannot have an expanding universe yet at the same time why does the universe remain to be seen as flat, does this not tell anyone that something is wrong, yes of coarse it is the big bang, it is the cause of all our misunderstanding, the Cobe satellite readings may seem to give us confirmation of a big bang beginning but the readings of the micro wave back ground radiation does have an alternative explanation. I read this once in a science dictionary, if an electron moved from an orbit of high energy to one of a lower energy, its excess energy would be emitted as a single quantum of radiation with a particular frequency ) this then tells me that if light acts in this way then light being emitted by the billions of galaxies should also give off this lower radiation frequency if this light interacted with space particles especially if they were ionised or charged hence leaving the microwave back ground radiation, its like a high energy moving to a lower energy and the remainder is what we find as the back ground radiation, one could say that a child threw a ball at a window and it bounced back, the energy thrown has been absorbed by the window and the ball returning is of a lesser energy, or a batsman hitting a cricket ball or even light falling upon plant life which converts it to food which is the energy that we find and maintains a life cycle. We must remain aware that even though a prediction seems to provide the nearest thing we have to understanding the universe we must not ignore the fact that what we teach today must be left open for any individual whether working in science or not to confront and that there are alternatives, one being that the pressure of light whilst being gentle would not only be a tremendous force in a weightless environment but also carries an inverse square law pretty close to gravity and most importantly it exists as opposed to gravity which remains elusive and is far weaker than the force of light, otherwise if we continue to teach the would be scientists of today based on old laurels then they in turn would teach the would be scientists of tomorrow about a universe that has been scientifically created based on such concepts as General Relativity and Special Relativity that give no proper scientific explanation as to there confusing introduction or origin."

"I have my understanding of the universe, a quest that all of you seek, yet whilst I remain a non mainstream theorist I also have to remain in this biological nut house of mine where I am at my happiest in knowing that I have acquired an understanding and enjoy wearing my own laurels. Behold the emperor is wearing no clothes."

Well now you have read what this author is about his name is John Reyes and his book it titled A Brief Scientific Slip in Time and he himself wrote and self published his ideas and the colour illustrations, they left us intrigued and hence we decided to help him publish his work as this e-book. His explanation of an alternative universe is unique and he rightly does not force anyone to believe what he has written in his book and leaves it for each individual to decide, if he is right as we believe he is then how long before his work and alternative views are recognised, who in science is the puppet master that fails to notice the reason this puppet wears his laurels without strings.

He does not mention in his book in detail what he has explained to us here but only gives a brief account, what he does explain is a universe without phenomena and for this reason we believe it is an intuitive and simple Ockam's Razor. If you decide to purchase the e-book you are more than welcome to copy these pages for your own personal use and reading pleasure and add them to your book. The illustrations are in colour some taking up one full page each and total around 20 or more. The book in total is 78 A4 sides. We hope you enjoy and read the book several times to understand this alternative view taking into consideration what John Reyes has already explained above. Apart from that we hope you enjoy his web site which we have been happy to sponsor.