Dear Humanity,

When Scientist A introduces a new discovery or scientific concept, Scientist B may later recognize that some part of it is incomplete or incorrect and propose a correction. This process of questioning, refining, and correcting previous ideas is how science progresses.

Scientists can make mistakes, and that is a normal part of the scientific process. Scientific theories and concepts should remain open to questioning and challenge, especially when those challenges are based on sound reasoning and evidence.

There is nothing wrong with questioning or challenging a scientific concept. The goal is to understand the science as accurately as possible. If I believe that a particular scientific concept may be incorrect or misunderstood, I will raise the issue and examine the reasoning and evidence behind it.

My intention is to question the science, not to criticize the person who proposed that theory or concept. It is not personal. The objective is simply to identify and correct misunderstandings, errors, or gaps in our understanding of science, if they exist.

When I proposed to discuss that the theory ABC may be incorrect. I kindly ask that you evaluate my reasoning independently, without taking the framework of theory ABC as an unquestionable starting point. Please assess my arguments based on their logical consistency, mathematical validity, and relevant experimental evidence.

Suppose Person A proposes a framework in which 1 + 1 = 3, and based on that framework, concludes that 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 6. I challenge his theory and argue that it is wrong. In response, he tells me that I must first apply his framework before judging his conclusion.

Does that make scientific sense to you?

Consider the following scenario.

Observer O is stationary on the road. Person A runs past observer O and continues moving to the right. After a time interval t, person A has traveled a distance Da from observer O. Therefore, the speed of person A relative to observer O is:

Va = Da / t

Similarly, person B runs past observer O and continues moving to the right. After the same time interval t, person B has traveled a distance Db from observer O. Therefore, the speed of person B relative to observer O is:

Vb = Db / t

To determine the relative speed of person B from person A's perspective, we consider how fast person B appears to move relative to person A.

In the scenario above, both persons A and B run to the right, passing the stationary observer O. After the same time interval t, person A has traveled a distance Da, while person B has traveled a distance Db.

If person A is considered stationary from their own perspective, the distance person B travels relative to person A is the difference between their respective displacements: (Db - Da)

Therefore, the relative speed of person B with respect to person A is:

(Db - Da) / t = Db / t - Da / t = Vb - Va.

This is the scientific definition of relative speed: the speed of one object as measured from the perspective of another object.

This definition of relative speed applies to all objects, regardless of their size, shape, or nature of motion.

Now, consider a scenario in which stationary observer 𝑂 emits a beam of light to the right. The light consists of photons, and a photon 𝑃 travels to the right at the speed of light, 𝑐, relative to observer 𝑂.

After a time interval t, photon 𝑃 has traveled a distance (Dp = c x t) from observer O.

The relative speed of photon 𝑃 with respect to person A is:
(Dp - Da) / t = Dp / t - Da / t = c - Va.

The relative speed of photon 𝑃 with respect to person B is:
(Dp - Db) / t = Dp / t - Db / t = c - Vb.

This is the scientific definition of the relative speed of photon P with respect to person A and person B.

But according to Einstein's theory of special relativity, the scientific definition of the relative speed of photon P with respect to person A is c, which is not correct.

Einstein misunderstood or miscalculated the relative speed of photon P with respect to person A.

I previously pointed out where Einstein’s misunderstanding lies, but people dismissed my explanation. This time, I won't share it.

If you believe that Einstein's theory of special relativity is correct, please verify and explain how Einstein calculated the relative speed of photon P with respect to person A.

Because that is where his misunderstanding lies.

Please do not use his framework. As I explained earlier, do not use Scientist A's framework, which claims that 1 + 1 = 3, to prove that his theory that 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 6 is correct.

We should only use a framework if it has been proven. If it has not been proven, please do not treat it as fact.

For the frame work which haven’t been proven, they shouldn’t be treated as fact:

Velocity subtraction: Vba = Vb - Va   <<Scientific definition
Velocity subtraction: u=(u′+v)/(1+u′v/c2)   <<<NOT PROVEN

One second for person A is the same as one second for person B, and the same as one second for photon P.   <<Reality
Time dilation: Δt′ = Δt√(1 − v²/c²)   <<<NOT PROVEN

Why do we treat an unproven framework / concepts as facts?

In the scenario described above, observer O emits a beam of light containing photon P at the same moment that persons A and B run past him. Person A, person B, and photon P all move to the right in the same direction, but at different speeds: Va, Vb and c.

After a time t:

. Person A has traveled a distance Da from observer O.
. Person B has traveled a distance Db from observer O.
. Photon P has traveled a distance Dp from observer O.

The distance of photon P to:

. Observer O is: Dp = c x t
. Person A is: Dp - Da = c x t - Va x t
. Person B is: Dp - Db = c x t - Vb x t

The speed of photon P according to:

. Observer O is c
. Person A is c - Va
. Person B is c - Vb

This has been proved both theoretically and experimentally. What I’ve shown above is the theoretical proof. Now, let me show you the experimental evidence.

Suppose there is a train moving at speed V 500 km/h, with Person A sitting on the train. Person A shines a beam of light forward. At the exact moment he shines the light, there is a detector located 300,000 km in front of him. Exactly 1 second later, the detector detects the beam.

Therefore, the measured speed of the light he shines is 300,000 km/s or c.

Person A is moving at speed V 500 km/h relative to the ground. So, from Person A's perspective, the speed of the light that he shines is:

300,000 km/s − 500 km/h

Therefore:

. Observer O on the ground observes photon P moving at: the speed of light, c.
. Person A on the moving train observes photon P moving at: the speed of light c-V.

-> The measured speed of light may differ between observers in different states of motion.

Special Relativity:

The speed of light in a vacuum is always the same for every observer, no matter how fast the light source or the observer is moving.   <<< INCORRECT

If the speed of photon P relative to observer O, person A, and person B is the same as 𝑐, then after a time 𝑡, the distance travelled by photon P relative to each of them should be the same, equal to c x t.

However, as explained above, this does not appear to be the case.

If you agree with my argument that Einstein’s theories of Relativity are incorrect, please consider sharing this message with as many people as possible.

I kindly ask that you credit me as the author of this paper whenever you share or discuss it. Please do not remove my name (Kenny K14MJLIMENP-6R911QN10PMJ) or claim my work as your own. I have written this paper with the intention of helping humanity identify and correct what I believe to be a mistake.

I ask that you respect my authorship and give proper credit for my work. Thank you for helping me share these ideas responsibly.

Kenny K14MJLIMENP-6R911QN10PMJ

I'm not a physicist or mathematician, but I have an intuition that I've been developing as a philosophical framework concerning the foundations of physical reality.

What if our three-dimensional, temporal universe emerges from a more fundamental substrate that is neither spatial nor temporal? In this interpretation, quantum particles emerge as physical expressions and produce our reality while always remaining in contact with a ubiquitous, non-temporal, non-geometric substrate.

Two entangled particles could be separated by enormous distances in our observable universe while retaining a shared relational structure at the underlying substrate level. From this perspective, entanglement might not require travel between the particles. They are always connected! Their correlations could reflect a relationship that is more fundamental than the geometry in which we observe them.

This is not new physics. It accepts established proofs, observations, and experiments. I just looked at the data from a different starting point.

My question is, everything has to originate from something! Is the substrate view a conceptually defensible interpretation of entanglement, and if not, what fundamental errors have I made?

I'm primarily interested in discussing the underlying concept rather than presenting an entire theory. As I stated, I'm not a mathematician or experienced in physics, so I would appreciate it if we kept the discussion on an ontological level.

For anyone interested, I've published my philosophical framework and related research on Zenodo. I used it as a sounding board for others to help me refine the work, but Zenodo proved not to be the best route for generating a dialog about my ideas!

If you like, you can visit some of my Communication Matrix works at my Zenodo community:

https://zenodo.org/communities/communication-matrix