Thoughts for 2005-2006-2008-2009-2012

(Back to page 1 of this theory)


I have not stopped thinking, I have merely stopped writing. Before I forget what I've been thinking about, I'd better write down my thoughts. I'm not getting any younger.

Time is NOT the fourth dimension, as Einstein thought. I'm sure he would agree with me that it is the FIRST dimension, without which the other dimensions could not exist. This is an important point. We need to change our entire way of thinking about time, so the best way is to renumber it as the first dimension. After all, there cannot exist two points in the universe without time. You cannot go from point A to point B without time.

Time had to PRE-EXIST, or at least the potential for time had to pre-exist the other dimensions. Now that we have renumbered Time as the first dimension, we need to get rid of the notion that these four dimensions can be separated by simply numbering them one, two, three, and four. They are one and the same. None can exist without the others. Numbering them is just a convenient way for us mere humans to talk about them. They ARE and they ALWAYS WERE. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be... etc. This applies to the four dimensions of the universe.

Time, as a dimension, is unique. You can travel back and forth along the dimensions labled x, y, and z. Since time is linked to the expansion of the universe, you cannot travel back along the time "line." One can only travel from the past into the future as the universe itself is doing, dragging all the other dimensions that give it existence along with it. Going from the future into the past is unthinkable since there is not enough energy available to accomplish reversing the expansion of the Universe. If the entire Universe were eventually to stop expanding and begin to shrink, one would not go back from the future to the past. The direction of time would change and one would still be "traveling" from the past into the future... in a different and imperceivable "direction."


Watching "The Ghost Particle" program on NOVA this week, I was happy to "discover" that "recent" events in physics have shown that the neutrino is not massless, as was once thought... a definite problem for my theory which presumes that ALL particles in this Universe have mass.

On a car drive home from a long trip, I thought long and hard about the neutrino/mass significance, and decided that if Einstein had known neutrinos had mass, he would not have given up on his unified field theory so easily. He followed what he was being told by other physicists as fact, not theory, and let them talk him out of his own gut feeling. The neutrino was proposed by Wolfgang Pauli in 1930 and between 1930 and 1939, all that nonsense about it being massless emerged, even before proof of its existence was ever certain.

We need to go back to Einstein's Unified Field Theory and start over, using the knowledge that we have today.

The clue may be sitting on my father's kitchen table in a mayonaise jar replica of an electroscope that I built to try to explain what I thought was going on between my space/time theory and the "new" knowledge that neutrinos have mass. What causes the collapse of the "gold" foil leaves may not be just ambient background radiation as we were told in high school, but the combination of that plus the bombardment of particles from the stars... including the neutrino.

I thought of a new experiment which would prove Einstein's Unified Field Theory starting position once and for all. Over the Super-Kamiokande neutrino detector in Japan, place a series of electro-magnetic screens to see if they can reduce the neutrino count from above the detector, the same as it has been reduced by the mass of the earth from beneath it. If any reduction at all can be made in the neutrino count, that would show that for all practical purposes, to the neutrino, gravity is indistinguishable from electro-magnetism (a point made by my own theory).




G=A=T= E=M

Gravity is indistinguishable from the constant Acceleration of the inflating universe that is Space-Time that gives particles Energy and creates Mass in them.


Great excitement! I saw Joao Migueijo's explanation for his Variable Speed of Light theory on TV tonight and realized that it fits in perfectly with my own continueous inflation of space/time theory. I sent him an e-mail to let him know that the experimental evidence that can prove my theory can prove his theory at the same time, and it depends on them fixing the glitches in the CERN Hadron Collider and giving up the search for the mystical Higgs Boson to use it for more important matters... like proving my theory!



Do nuclear decay rates depend on our distance from the sun?
August 29th, 2008

Here’s an interesting conundrum involving nuclear decay rates.

We think that the decay rates of elements are constant regardless of the ambient conditions (except in a few special cases where beta decay can be influenced by powerful electric fields).

So that makes it hard to explain the curious periodic variations in the decay rates of silicon-32 and radium-226 observed by groups at the Brookhaven National Labs in the US and at the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesandstalt in Germany in the 1980s.

Today, the story gets even more puzzling. Jere Jenkins and pals at Purdue University in Indiana have re-analysed the raw data from these experiments and say that the modulations are synchronised with each other and with Earth’s distance from the sun. (Both groups, in acts of selfless dedication, measured the decay rates of silicon-32 and radium-226 over a period of many years.)

In other words, there appears to be an annual variation in the decay rates of these elements.

Jenkins and co put forward two theories to explain why this might be happening.

First, they say a theory developed by John Barrow at the University of Cambridge in the UK and Douglas Shaw at the University of London, suggests that the sun produces a field that changes the value of the fine structure constant on Earth as its distance from the sun varies during each orbit. Such an effect would certainly cause the kind of an annual variation in decay rates that Jenkins and co highlight.

Another idea is that the effect is caused by some kind of interaction with the neutrino flux from the sun’s interior, which could be tested by carrying out the measurements close to a nuclear reactor (which would generate its own powerful neutrino flux).

It turns out, that the notion of that nuclear decay rates are constant has been under attack for some time. In 2006, Jenkins says the decay rate of manganese-54 in their lab decreased dramtically during a solar flare on 13 December.

And numerous groups disagree over the decay rate for elements such as titanium-44, silicon-32 and cesium-137. Perhaps they took their data at different times of the year.

Keep em peeled beause we could hear more about this. Interesting stuff.

Ref: Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance

My Response to this is as follows (1/2/09):

To me, the relationship of nuclear decay rates and the distance from the sun is evidence of the local effects of space/time inflation. We are "blind" to this inflation because we are tied to the earth and bound by its space/time inflation. It is only when we leave the earth that we can see that space/time inflation is not constant but varies relative to speed and gravity. Now we have proof that we are also tied to the Solar System's space/time inflation, and I expect that over a great deal of time we may discover that we are also tied to the space/time inflation of our galaxy... if we should live long enough for the experiment to run its course.


Space-time, dark energy and the accelerated expansion of all matter in the universe are one and the same.


This has taken a long time to work out. We are mass and energy combined and therefore cannot see ourselves except through imagination. We create gods from piety, overcome by the miracle in which we find ourselves. Anyway, here's the progress report.

Ec = mc, in which c is NOT the speed of light, but the speed of time. (Recall that we can only measure the speed of time by observing the speed of light)

Both Energy and Mass only exist NOW by virture of having moved HERE from THEN and THERE.

The interaction of this expansion movement through Time creates the attraction forces that hold both Mass and Energy together in the NOW.

Interactions between those attraction forces with one another create the repulsion forces of electromagnetism.

Those repulsion forces interact with E and M to move them randomly in space (X,Y, and Z). The attraction forces keep these random electromagnetic movements from becoming CHAOS.

I know now why the Wiccan greeting is "Blessed be." I am still a non-theist, but it is becoming difficult to remain pious. Your problem is to decide if I am a ranting lunatic or if you are becoming me. Stay sane; it is safer.

Back to The Beginning

Contact Jim Gerrish at: