Article 3. WE ARE HERE: Direction Diction
The above silent film was made over 100 years ago, so it’s worth watching for that reason alone!
But more significantly, the film was made for “lay people” a century ago to help them understand the then-NEW concept of RELATIVITY in the context of Albert Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, which is the widely-accepted “theory of gravity” today.
But I REJECT the General Theory of Relativity, and in this article I will explain one reason why:
The General Theory of Relativity says that ALL DIRECTION IS RELATIVE, which is false, and God’s existence (see Article 1) proves it.
Let’s go to the film to see how we can PROVE that ALL DIRECTION IS NOT RELATIVE.
We don’t even have to watch the entire silent film!
We only have to watch about two minutes of it: Time 4:15 through Time 6:28.
At Time 5:29, the film begins the discussion of DIRECTION in the universe.
The earth is depicted as a sphere in space, and we are taken to a place far above the North Pole of the earth.
Then at Time 5:54 we are shown an arrow that is planted at a certain longitude and latitude on the earth’s surface.
We watch how the arrow points in different directions as the earth turns on its axis.
The film tells us: “To the man on earth the arrow always points up. To us out here in space it points in all directions.”
And we dutifully agree, because that makes perfect sense...or does it?
QUESTION: Are we supposed to be looking at the FLAG or are we supposed to be looking at the EARTH?
ANSWER: We are supposed to be looking at the FLAG. And THE FLAG HAS NOT CHANGED DIRECTIONS, regardless of whether an observer is watching the flag from a position ON EARTH or from a position OUT IN SPACE.
This is not rocket science!
Think about a different example: Imagine that you were riding in the front seat of a car, which was moving in straight line along a highway, but you were looking at a passenger CRAWLING ACROSS THE BACK SEAT.
Then imagine that YOU ESCAPED FROM THE FRONT SEAT OF THE CAR IN A HELICOPTER.
After you got a few hundred feet above the car, YOU LOOKED DOWN AT THE CAR TO TRY TO DETERMINE WHICH DIRECTION THE PASSENGER CRAWLING ACROSS THE BACK SEAT WAS MOVING.
But from your position up in the air, it appeared as if the passenger was moving in many different directions!
So therefore, you reasoned, THERE ARE NO FIXED DIRECTIONS.
What the???
No, that’s an example of “jumping to a false conclusion.”
The first problem you needed to solve was INDIVIDUATION, i.e., understanding that “YOU” and THE CAR and THE PASSENGER IN THE BACK SEAT are three different objects that can each only move in ONE DIRECTION at any given time.
The second problem you needed to solve was REMEMBERING that Newton’s First Law of Motion reveals that an object is going to keep moving in THE SAME DIRECTION until a new unrivaled force acts-upon it.
There is NO NEW FORCE acting-on the flag, so the flag did not CHANGE DIRECTIONS when you flew into space!
To repeat: Your position as an observer is IRRELEVANT to the answer about the position of the flag; the presence of an observer is NOT causing the flag to CHANGE POSITIONS! To put it frankly—because there’s NO WAY to put it nicely—to “theorize” otherwise is INSANE!
Ergo, after you “get your head together,” YOU HAVE TO *CHOOSE* WHETHER YOU WANT TO “BE WITH” (aka observe) THE CAR OR THE PASSENGER IN THE BACK SEAT, because POSITIONALLY, you can’t “be with” BOTH the car and the passenger in the back seat simultaneously; and the reason why you can’t “be with” BOTH the car and passenger in the back seat POSITIONALLY is because the position of the car and the position of the passenger in the back seat are MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE THINGS, as opposed to being MUTUALLY-RELATIVE THINGS.
Stay with me now, because this is not going to become more complicated, this is going to become simpler, but UNTIL WE DERIVE THE LAWS OF DIRECTION FROM KNOWN TRUTHS, we can’t talk about “directions,” we have to make-do with accurately describing *situations* that indisputably exist, and that can SOUND complicated, even though it’s not if you actually follow the descriptions of the situations.
Here’s what I mean about the position of the car and the position of the passenger in the back seat being MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE THINGS: The center-of-mass (“COM”) of the passenger in the back seat is clearly ”RIDING” ON TOP OF THE COM OF THE CAR, and therefore the COM of the passenger in the back seat is POSITIONALLY RELATIVE-TO THE COM OF THE CAR, but not vice-versa, so now the position of the passenger in the back seat has become DEPENDENT-ON the car’s existence, but the position of the car is NOT DEPENDENT-ON the back-seat passenger’s existence. And that is what it means for their positions to be MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE. Ergo, if you want to observe the car, then you must treat the passenger in the back seat as *part of the car*, but if you want to observe the passenger in the back seat, then you must *ignore the car*.
Likewise, POSITIONALLY, the FLAG and the EARTH are MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE THINGS, as opposed to being MUTUALLY-RELATIVE THINGS, because the COM of the FLAG is “RIDING” ON TOP OF THE COM OF THE EARTH, and therefore the FLAG is POSITIONALLY RELATIVE-TO THE EARTH, but not vice-versa, so now the position of the flag is DEPENDENT-ON the earth’s existence, but the position of the earth is NOT DEPENDENT-ON the flag’s existence. And that is what it means for their positions to be MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE. Ergo, if we want to observe the EARTH, then we must treat the flag as *part of the earth*, but if we want to observe the FLAG, then we must *ignore the earth*.
CRITIC: [in my imagination] Ummm, yeah, but it’s not as if the EARTH (or the CAR in my example) are THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE or something! In other words, it’s not as if the EARTH (or the CAR) has AN ABSOLUTE DIRECTION; the direction of motion of the EARTH (and the CAR) is RELATIVE, too!
ME: True dat, but it’s not as if GOD DOES NOT EXIST or something! In other words, it’s not as if there isn’t AN ABSOLUTE DIRECTION from whence all things came, and to which the position of all things in the universe—including the EARTH (or the CAR in my example)—must be RELATIVE. It’s not as if all things in the universe aren’t “RIDING” ON TOP OF THE COM OF GOD! And it’s not as if we can have any doubt about whether it’s possible for two things to occupy the same position in the universe (nope, that’s impossible!)
So therefore we could surely simply define every object’s direction RELATIVE-TO THE ABSOLUTE DIRECTION (the direction of THE COM OF GOD)—and this is not some revolutionary new concept, this is Isaac Newton’s foundational assumption of Absolute Space—and in that manner we could accurately compare the observed directions of individual objects all throughout the universe, right?
QUESTION: Was Einstein SINCERELY CONFUSED about the fact that God exists and CREATED THE UNIVERSE, ergo, there is most certainly an Absolute Backward direction toward God?
ANSWER: IDK if Einstein was CONFUSED, but we do know that Einstein was trying to solve the urgent problem of NEWTON’S THEORY OF GRAVITY BEING DEBUNKED BY “THE VANISHING SUN TEST.”
So Einstein had AN OPPORTUNITY and A MOTIVE and THE INTELLECTUAL MEANS to fill that void—meaning to conceive of gravity in a manner that didn’t require the gravitational effect between two bodies to act faster than light could travel between the two bodies (NOTE that it takes light a full 8 minutes to travel between the sun and the earth! so it would be impossible for a gravitational force applied by the sun to reach the earth sooner than 8 minutes! Newton’s theory of gravity was 100 FALSE and could not be fixed or accepted for EVEN EIGHT MORE MINUTES!)—and we see that EINSTEIN CHOSE TO PROCEED IN A GODLESS DIRECTION BUT CONTINUED TO “PAY LIP SERVICE” TO GOD’S EXISTENCE.
The contradiction between Einstein’s REJECTION OF THE ABSOLUTE BACKWARD DIRECTION OF GOD and PAYING LIP-SERVICE TO GOD’S EXISTENCE suggests that Einstein was thinking with a DUPLICITOUS MIND.
And indeed, Einstein himself confirmed that HE WAS DISINTERESTED IN JUSTICE—A JUST GOD, “who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”
For these reasons alone, I consider it A DUTY to reject the poisonous fruit of the tree—and the flag—of “knowledge” that Einstein planted 100+ years ago for us to STUMBLE UPON.
In retrospect, it’s apparent that the past 100 years have been “the darkest ages” in science history; the world’s populace has been confounding progress with the profligate feigned wisdom of the proverbial Doctor Faustus during his prodigious reign, as Albert Einstein used his theories of RELATIVITY to deny the existence of the ABSOLUTE direction toward God—in defiance of Isaac Newton’s unassailable foundational assumption of Absolute Space—and that, I submit, is GOOD CAUSE TO ALLEGE that Einstein’s theories of RELATIVITY were no less than EINSTEIN’S PERSONAL DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST GOD!
Let the scientists who claim to have made “observations” that “confirm” Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity explain their own scientific positions vis-a-vis the Absolute Backward direction.
The filmmakers persist to insist that DIRECTION IS MEANINGLESS, and proceed to presume that viewers will IGNORE GOD and ILLOGICALLY CONCLUDE that positionally, the flag and the earth are MUTUALLY-RELATIVE THINGS that must be observed TOGETHER!
At Time 6:09, the film tells us:
“Direction is seen to be only relative. What we called ‘Up’ and ‘Down’ on earth is meaningless to us out in space. This is…shown when two captains [one on the North Pole and one on the South Pole] on earth order flags ‘raised’ on their vessels.”
Then the film asks us:
“Are both flags UP as we look at them from our position out here in space?”
The film does not answer the question, thereby IMPLYING that the answer is “NO.”
My answer is: “YES.”
More specifically, I would say:
“When the two flags are being raised on opposite poles of the earth, then THE CENTER-OF-MASS (‘COM’) OF EACH FLAG FLAG IS MOVING IN THE SAME DIRECTION, 3-d Up, RELATIVE-TO THE ABSOLUTE BACKWARD DIRECTION, which is the direction of THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE, aka THE DIRECTION OF THE ORIGIN (THE COM) OF GOD. We know that from every point on the earth (and around the earth, as long as it’s impossible to ‘pass by’ the earth)—regardless of the position of the observer looking-at the earth—the Absolute Backward direction, which is the direction toward the origin of the universe, aka the direction of the origin of God, is going to be THE DIRECTION TOWARD THE COM OF THE EARTH, because we can see that every body, including the earth, is constructed of small objects, so therefore the construction had to occur in ‘layers,’ one layer on top of another, from the inside out, which means that THE ORIGIN OF EVERY BODY, including THE EARTH, IS THE COM, and that’s always going to be the place that is CLOSEST TO THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE. So again: From any position on and around the earth, the only ‘path’ any body has to GET BACK TO THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE IS TO MOVE THE BODY’S COM TOWARD THE COM OF THE EARTH. And now we can more clearly see that as both flags are being raised on opposite poles of the earth (or anywhere on earth, actually), THE COM OF EACH FLAG IS MOVING IN THE SAME DIRECTION, 3-d Up, RELATIVE-TO THE ABSOLUTE BACKWARD DIRECTION, which is the direction of THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE, aka THE DIRECTION OF THE ORIGIN (THE COM) OF GOD.”
Now we have to further unpack that answer to determine how, exactly, it’s possible for every point in the universe to be RELATIVE-TO THE ORIGIN (THE COM) OF GOD, because even though GOD MUST HAVE AN ORIGIN (A COM), GOD-AS-A-WHOLE IS NOT “A SINGLE POINT,” but rather, GOD IS UNFATHOMABLY LARGE, AND SO IS THE UNIVERSE!
In other words, NOW WE’VE GOT TO FIND THE COM OF GOD.
Let’s begin to unpack.
🧳🧳🧳🧳🧳🧳🧳🧳🧳🧳🧳🧳
We need to EMPTY THE UNIVERSE OF ALL ITS CONTENTS and FURTHER EXAMINE THE 3-PART MULTI-DIMENSIONAL ENTITY CALLED GOD (see Article 1) to FIND THE ORIGIN (THE COM) OF GOD, which is only accessible via the Absolute Backward direction that is NOT RELATIVE-TO ANY OTHER DIRECTION, and then we will easily be able to see how ALL OTHER DIRECTIONS INSIDE OF THE UNIVERSE *AND* INSIDE OF GOD ARE RELATIVE-TO THE ORIGIN OF GOD.
We know that the 3rd dimension was EMPTY before God created the universe, because we NOTICE that the universe includes many THINGS THAT ARE MUTUALLY RELATIVE-TO EACH OTHER, which informs us that THE UNIVERSE IS NOT ETERNAL, i.e., THE THINGS IN THE UNIVERSE MUST HAVE A CREATOR.
Recall from Article 1:
Because the universe is not Eternal, we know that THE BIG BANG HAD TO BE PREVENTED BEFORE IT COULD OCCUR; and to prevent the Big Bang, it would have been necessary for each part of God to experience INDEFINITE PHYSICAL AND ENERGETIC BALANCE.
We see by observation that larger objects are made-of smaller objects, so we are compelled to conclude that each part—each dimension—of God must be made-of INDIVIDUAL PARTICLES, which are NOT RELATIVE-TO EACH OTHER (otherwise there would be RELATIVITY within a dimension, which would destroy the ETERNALITY of the particles.)
Regarding ENERGETIC BALANCE, we aren’t prepared to say what, exactly, an Eternal particle “does all day,” but we do know that an Eternal particle always has to “do something”—without violating the Law of Conservation of Energy—or else the Eternal particle *does not exist*; it is impossible for SOMETHING to DO NOTHING, because nothing does not exist.
Regarding PHYSICAL BALANCE, each part of God must have the same number of Eternal particles, and they must be numbered (or otherwise uniquely identifiable), with the Eternal particles in different dimensions that have the same number being LINED-UP—i.e., living along the same multi-dimensional line, one-on-top-of-the-other—in a MULTI-DIMENSIONAL COLUMN.
But because dimensions are necessarily mutually-exclusive (otherwise there would be RELATIVITY within a dimension, which would destroy the ETERNALITY of God), we deduce that each particle must lie along its own line in its own dimension (let’s call that line an “Absolute Direction Line,” or “ADL.”)
We could envision the ADLs aligned one-on-top-of-the-other to form a “backbone”—an “ADL Backbone,” let’s call it—connecting the three particles in the three different dimensions of God, which would be a scene reminiscent of a marshmallow snowman on a stick (so let’s call that arrangement a “Snowman of God.”)
While we’re talking about Snowmen of God, let’s name the three particles in each Snowman of God:
Let’s call a particle of light in the 4th dimension (which is at the top of a Snowman) a “Lumeyne”;
and let’s call a particle of gravity in the 5th dimension (which is in the middle of a Snowman) a “Gravityne”;
and let’s call a particle of Father Time (Jesus/God the Father) in the 6th dimension (which is on the bottom of a Snowman) a “Timeyne.”
NOTE, however, that PARTICLES MUST BE SPHERICAL to ensure EQUALITY OF EVERY 3-d DIRECTION LINE between the particle’s center and the particle’s surface; in that manner, every cross-section cut through the center of a spherical particle by a specific 3-d DIRECTION LINE will be A CIRCLE, which is essential to ensure SYMMETRY of God as-a-whole.
God-as-a-whole must be symmetrical to ensure that THE SAME CAUSES HAVE THE SAME EFFECTS AT THE SAME TIME EVERYWHERE IN GOD.
Knowing that much, now we can envision the 3-part multi-dimensional entity called God looking-like an enormous SPHERICAL ARRAY of Snowmen of God, with the ADL Backbone of each Snowman of God being RELATIVE-TO THE 6-d COM OF FATHER TIME (the Jesus/God the Father part of God), who is “the beginning and the end” of God.
NOTE that neither the COM of the 5th dimension (the “5-d COM”) nor the COM of the 4th dimension (the “4-d COM”) is shown in the diagram above (which was derived from a graphic depiction of a Coronavirus, so please pardon the stray red splotches with black borders.)
If we added the 5-d COM and the 4-d COM to the above diagram, then the 5-d COM would be the origin of all of the Gravitynes, and the 4-d COM would be the origin of all of the Lumeynes, so that the SPHERICAL ARRAY of Snowmen of God would actually look more like A SPHERICAL BUILDING WITH THREE FLOORS (one floor per dimension) AND NO ROOF;
each particle would be setting on a specific segment of its own COM, so that the segments of the COM would be analogous to *partitions* on one floor of the building (the building in the diagram below is one of the Corncob Towers in Chicago.)
Each segment of the 6-d COM and the 5-d COM (like each partition of the building’s floor) would have to be physically connected-to a Lumeyne above, so those physical connections would be analogous to *walls* between floors of the building.
But keep in mind that there is NO RELATIVITY within a dimension, which means that within a dimension, the particles and the COM and the means for making a physical connection to the 4th dimension must all be ONE INSEPARABLE FUNCTIONAL THING, WHICH IS SEPARATED INTO NUMBERED SNOWMEN OF GOD.
Now we can better see that THE 6-d COM MUST HAVE A SINGLE POINT AT ITS CENTER, which is the beginning (the origin) and the end of God and all things, and the ADL Backbone of each Snowman of God would BEGIN AND END AT THAT POINT AT THE CENTER OF THE 6-COM, so that the Backward direction on each ADL would lead to the ORIGIN OF GOD, and therefore we could say that the Backward direction on each ADL is the Absolute Backward direction.
NOTE that in every case, the direction AWAY FROM THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE (the “Absolute Forward direction,” let’s call it, on every ADL Backbone) is determined RELATIVE-TO the origin of the universe.
This means that the direction AWAY FROM THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE—the Absolute Forward direction along an ADL Backbone—is RELATIVE-TO the Absolute Backward direction, but not vice-versa.
In other words, the Absolute Backward direction is NOT RELATIVE-TO any other direction!
WE HAVE SHOWN THAT ALL DIRECTION IS NOT RELATIVE!
Ergo, EINSTEIN HAD *NO SCIENTIFIC RIGHT* TO IGNORE ISAAC NEWTON’s concept of Absolute Space AND CONCLUDE THAT ABSOLUTE DIRECTION DOES NOT EXIST!
But we NOTICE that presently, “Newtonian mechanics” is reportedly (source: Livescience.com, “What Is Classical Mechanics?”) only applicable to objects “larger than a molecule and smaller than a planet.”
I’m not sure why that is, but it’s surely an error in applicable scope, because we will show, below, that EACH PARTICLE IN THE UNIVERSE MUST HAVE BEEN MADE-FROM ONE LUMEYNE PARTICLE (although we don’t know how yet), so therefore—since each Lumeyne particle lives along an ADL Backbone that is RELATIVE-TO the origin of God, which is accessed via the Absolute Backward direction on the ADL Backbone—EACH PARTICLE IN THE UNIVERSE MUST HAVE AN ABSOLUTE POSITION IN THE UNIVERSE, which means that “Newtonian mechanics” should be universally-applicable.
We ALSO NOTICE that the direction of the Gravitynes—the source of THE FORCE OF GRAVITY—is the Absolute Backward direction.
So we could also call the Absolute Backward direction the GRAVITY direction, and we could call the Absolute Forward direction the GRAVITY-OPPOSING direction.
We FURTHER NOTICE that since the 3rd dimension is RELATIVE-TO the 4th dimension, and in particular, because the universe had to be made-from—and therefore must be relative-to—the Lumeynes at the top of the SPHERICAL ARRAY OF SNOWMEN OF GOD lying along ADL Backbones, this means that all 3-d lines are RELATIVE-TO all of the ADL Backbones.
In other words, all 3-d directions are RELATIVE-TO BOTH the Absolute Backward (GRAVITY) direction AND the Absolute Forward (GRAVITY-OPPOSING) direction on an ADL Backbone.
QUESTION: How would it be possible to ACTUALLY “GET ON” an ADL Backbone from inside of the universe?
ANSWER: It would NOT BE POSSIBLE TO “GET ON” an ADL Backbone from inside of the universe, *but* IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO “GET ON” A 3-D LINE THAT IS RELATIVE-TO a specific ADL Backbone.
A 3-d line RELATIVE-TO a specific ADL Backbone would have a 3-d Down direction that approximates the Absolute Backward (GRAVITY) direction on that specific ADL Backbone, and the 3-d line would have a 3-d Up direction that approximates the Absolute Forward (GRAVITY-OPPOSING) direction on that specific ADL Backbone.
And we NOTICE that the 3-d UP direction must be RELATIVE-TO the 3-d Down direction, because the Absolute Forward direction is RELATIVE-TO the Absolute Backward direction on the ADL Backbone.
And also don’t forget that every line is like an endless 2-way street: At every point on any given line, it is possible to travel in either direction along the line.
Whew!
🧳🧳🧳🧳🧳🧳🧳🧳🧳🧳🧳🧳
We’ve finished unpacking our answer to the film’s question about how it’s possible for us to assume a position in space and conclude that two flags being raised on opposite poles of the earth are both UP?
THE “UNPACKED” ANSWER IS…drumroll please…
Me: *with Scarlett Johansson energy*
THE COM of each flag is moving along a 3-d line that is nearest to a specific ADL Backbone, and the direction in which the COM of each flag is moving along the 3-d line is the 3-d Up direction, which approximates the Absolute Forward (GRAVITY-OPPOSING) direction along that specific ADL Backbone.
We NOTE that the opposite direction—the 3-d Down direction—along the same 3-d line approximates the Absolute Backward (GRAVITY) direction along that specific ADL Backbone; we ALSO NOTE that the 3-d Down direction is TOWARD THE COM OF THE EARTH, and that’s because the COM of the earth is the ORIGIN OF THE EARTH, and that’s the closest point “on earth” to the ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE and THE ORIGIN OF GOD.
In our diagram, it appears as if the flags are moving along the same 3-d line approximating the same ADL Backbone, but that’s not necessarily reality; in fact, it wouldn’t make any difference to our analysis where on the earth’s surface each flag was positioned, because God is spherical, which means that ADL Backbones are everywhere, i.e., a 3-d Up/Down line will always approximate an ADL Backbone.
The mutual-relativity of ADL Backbones—all ADL Backbones are relative-to the ORIGIN OF GOD, so they are all relative-to each other—is what enables individual 3-d particles of matter to “use” the 3-d lines around any ADL Backbone to figure-out which direction is DOWN, and thereby establish an Absolute Position, i.e., a 3-d direction RELATIVE-TO THE COM OF GOD.
So TO REPEAT THE ANSWER:
Our position as an observer is IRRELEVANT to the answer about the position of the flags we are observing.
And when we observe the flags in the film, we see that as the flags are being RAISED, their COMs are both moving in the same direction—3-d Up—RELATIVE-TO the Absolute Backward direction, which can only be reached via THE COM OF THE EARTH.
Likewise, when the flags are being LOWERED, their COMs are both moving in the same direction—3-d Down—RELATIVE-TO the Absolute Backward direction, which can only be reached via THE COM OF THE EARTH.
QUESTION: How does God determine the position in Absolute Space of every particle in the universe?
ANSWER: We deduce that WITHIN EACH NUMBERED SNOWMAN OF GOD, the same portion of the 6-COM (meaning the “floor” of the 6th dimension that is divided into segments upon which individual particles set) that makes a physical connection to a Lumeyne in the 4th dimension is also going to have to extend into the universe to be with one individual 3-d particle of matter—to make that individual 3-d particle of matter RELATIVE-TO THE COM OF GOD, giving the 3-d particle of matter THE SAME SNOWMAN NUMBER as the Lumeyne that the 3-d particle of matter was created-from—and therefore God could determine the direction of any individual 3-d particle of matter based-on the “WAY-POINT HISTORY” of the physical connection (that extends from the 6th dimension to the 3-d particle of matter), and the WAY-POINT HISTORY would simply be the history of having a specific 3-d orientation relative-to the nearest numbered ADL Backbone.
The main point I want to make about ADL Backbones is that their mutual-relativity and ubiquity frees us from having to worry about matter’s “WAY-POINT HISTORY”; we don’t have to create A MAP OF EVERY PARTICLE IN THE UNIVERSE to do motion analysis!
All we ever have to worry about to figure-out where we’re heading—to “establish our existence” in the world and to understand our Absolute Position and determine our options from there—is which direction is DOWN (3-d Down)!
And of course we have to KEEP IN MIND that at every point on a line, there are two opposing directions; lines don’t actually have beginnings and endings, except for the one point at the origin of God where all ADL Backbones begin and end.
In the illustration above, we see that 3-d Down is different for the COM of the tree and for the COM of the tire-swing set-up hanging from the tree branch (let’s assume that the entire tire-swing set-up is one object); for the COM of the tree, 3-d Down is toward the ground (the COM of the earth), but for the COM of the tire-swing set-up, 3-d Down is toward the tree branch where the set-up is attached, because that’s the only place in the set-up that has any PHYSICAL CONNECTION to the earth, and the connection is via the COM of the tree, which is “blocking” the COM of the tire-swing set-up from getting to the COM of the earth, so we would say that the tire-swing set-up is ON TOP OF the COM of the tree.
And actually, that’s PHYSICAL REALITY, not mere vocabulary!
The COM of the tree is *enTIREly* PHYSICALLY SUPPORTING the tire-swing set-up, and thereby “blocking” the path of the COM of the tire-swing set-up from getting any closer to the COM of the earth!
We can better envision the “HOLDING-UP” function the tree is performing for the tire-swing set-up if we remove the “hanging” from the scene.
But before we can delve deeper into the specifics of “navigation,” we need to EXPLAIN THE BIG BANG AND MATTER’S FORMATION; then as we explain “the beginning” of the universe, we will automatically answer more and more questions about direction.
That’s a segue for taking us to different subject matter.
NOTE that from the 3-d POV, which is RELATIVE-TO the multi-dimensional SPHERE of God—which means RELATIVE-TO all the ADL Backbones—we could never actually SEE A SNOWMAN OF GOD OR AN ADL BACKBONE (not even ONE LUMEYNE particle)!
And even when we IMAGINE “LOOKING AT” THE SPHERE OF GOD, we can only “envision” THE SURFACE.
So let’s do that.
Prior to the Big Bang, 4-d Lumeynes would have been evenly-spaced on THE SURFACE of the multi-dimensional sphere of Snowmen of God.
From a “whole 3-d” POV—in other words, if we could observe the sphere of God from everywhere in the universe at once, meaning “on top of” the 4th dimension, all around in every 3-d direction on a spherical compass at every point in the universe—the pre-Big-Bang sphere of God we would imagine would look like a “Lumeyne bouquet.”
The closest analogy I can think-of is a lollipop bouquet, which I would caption: “God for Dummies.”
It bears repeating that we don’t have enough information yet to know how MATTER was made, but we do know that matter had to be made-from Lumeynes, and we also know that after the Big Bang, MATTER WOULD BE IN THE 3rd DIMENSION, aka THE UNIVERSE, which would be RELATIVE-TO (and necessarily “on top of”) the Lumeynes.
And also again, we see by observation that larger objects are made-of smaller objects, so we are going to have to ASSUME the existence of ATOMS in the universe.
Now we might be tempted to assume that ATOMS are actually individual particles of matter, with a one-to-one correspondence with Eternal Lumeyne particles of God.
But the problem with that assumption is that WE CAN SEE MOLECULES—and more specifically, we can see that DIFFERENT TYPES OF MOLECULES HAVE DIFFERENT GEOMETRIC STRUCTURES—so therefore eventually we’ve got to explain explain how individual particles of matter are arranged to form MOLECULES, and of course that is only going to be possible if MOLECULES ARE COMPRISED-OF ATOMS THAT HAVE DIFFERENT GEOMETRIC STRUCTURES.
And therein lies the (logically helpful!) problem, to wit: We have already deduced that individual particles of matter with a one-to-one correspondence to the Eternal Lumeyne particles of God must be SPHERICAL!
Ergo, we cannot conclude that ATOMS are individual particles of matter, but rather, we must conclude that ATOMS are comprised-of individual SPHERICAL particles of matter arranged to form different GEOMETRIC STRUCTURES, and those individual spherical particles of matter have a one-to-one correspondence to the Eternal Lumeyne particles of God.
So we could accurately call an individual spherical particle of matter a SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLE (“SAP.”)
We can FURTHER DEDUCE that there will be one SAP at the center-of-mass (“COM”)—the origin—of every atom.
We can STILL FURTHER DEDUCE that AN ATOM having a GEOMETRIC STRUCTURE will be comprised-of TWO PARTS:
(1) a Positionally-Absolute Part, which will be the SAP at the atom’s COM (the “COM SAP,” or “Atomic COM,” let’s call it);
and
(2) a Positionally-Relative Part (let’s call it the “Atomic Mass”), which will be one or more SAPs positioned RELATIVE-TO the COM SAP, aka Atomic COM,
so that TOGETHER, the Atomic COM and the Atomic Mass will form the GEOMETRIC STRUCTURE of the ATOM.
We can YET STILL FURTHER DEDUCE that an atom will move along a 3-d line defined by its Atomic COM, and in theory, the Atomic COM should be capable of moving in any 3-d direction on a spherical compass.
Nevertheless, there must exist a specific HIERARCHY OF RELATIVITY among the 3-d directions, because the 3rd dimension is RELATIVE-TO the higher-dimensions and the two Absolute directions on each ADL Backbone.
In particular, the 3-d Down direction must approximate the Absolute Backward (GRAVITY) direction on an ADL Backbone, while the 3-d Up direction must approximate the Absolute Forward (GRAVITY-OPPOSING) direction on an ADL Backbone, so therefore the 3-d Up direction must be relative-to the 3-d Down direction.
We also deduce that the other directions on a spherical compass—the 3-d sideways directions, which are neither 3-d Up nor 3-d Down—must all be relative-to the 3-d Up direction.
That deduction is based on the now-known fact that regardless of where you are, there’s only one way for your COM to go Down, meaning that if you could keep going Down—assuming that you are physically-connected to the 6th dimension (and as discussed, above, we must make that assumption)—then you would always end up at the same point in the 6th dimension, whereas if you kept going Up or sideways, then you would always end-up at different points in the 3rd dimension.
So the 3-d sideways directions could also aptly be called the “3-d Forward directions” (and we RECALL from Article 1 that in the context of the Soul and conscious decisions to select the direction of the Soul, we refer-to the 3-d sideways directions as “EXIT RAMP directions.”)
So here we’ve actually found some agreement with Albert Einstein, since the 3-d sideways (aka 3-d Forward, aka EXIT RAMP) directions must all be relative-to each other, because they are all relative-to the 3-d Up direction.
That brings us to “where we are” now—with our material bodies *in* the universe— looking-at objects comprised-of atoms *in* the universe, which (the universe) we know came-from—and remains *on top of*—the SPHERE of God comprising individual Snowmen of God.
One thing we know is that we can’t ever see THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE, because we must be *on one side* of the arrangement of matter that was created from the pre-Big-Bang Lumeyne bouquet.
In other words, WE CANNOT BE *ON TOP OF* BOTH SIDES OF THE 3-part multi-dimensional SPHERE OF GOD SIMULTANEOUSLY, so we are only able to see the atoms on the surface of objects *in our side* of the universe.
And we cannot see THE ONE ATOM AT THE ORIGIN OF AN OBJECT (and we likewise can never see THE ONE SAP—the ATOMIC COM—at THE ORIGIN OF AN OBJECT), because to do that we would have to STRIP-AWAY EVERYTHING THAT IS RELATIVE-TO (ON TOP OF) THAT ONE ATOM AT THE ORIGIN OF THE OBJECT, and if we did that then THERE WOULD BE NO OBJECT LEFT TO OBSERVE!
This means that we will never be able to see very much—and we will definitely never be able to see the COM that is CONTROLLING AN OBJECT’S (OR AN ATOM’S) MOVEMENT—with our eyes and other instruments!
Ergo, our OBSERVATIONS—including MATHEMATICAL EQUATIONS THAT ACCURATELY “GENERALIZE” OUR OBSERVATIONS—ARE NEVER GOING TO BE SUFFICIENT to give us “insight” into the how the universe works (i.e. the CAUSES of the observed results.)
We’ll never understand “the deep things of God” by OBSERVING CREATION; we’ve got to “GET BEHIND CREATION” in our minds and DEDUCE “HOW GOD DID IT.”
We can reassure ourselves of this FACT by USING OUR MINDS to IMPROVISE a diagram of our POV on “one side” of the universe by imagining that we could SPLIT THE UNIVERSE into TWO HALVES by cutting it diagonally (along a 3-d line) through the center; that would give us A “HALF DECENT” VIEW DOWN INTO THE SPHERE of Snowmen of God.
We won’t be able to explain 3-d Space—what’s “between” material things in the universe—until we understand how sub-atomic particles were made from Lumeynes, but we can at least think more about what happens when we “cut matter open.”
When you really stop and think about the (t)issue, you quickly realize that it’s actually impossible to get a view of “what’s inside” of something made-of matter by “cutting it open,” because the applied physical force of the tool that *breaks* the SURFACE of the object will cause the atoms in the surface of the object to *react* to the physical force by *re-arranging*—
and the re-arranging will happen at the exact same time as our eyes and other instruments are “refreshing” their ”views”—
so by the time we NOTICE that the surface of the object has been broken, ALL WE WILL SEE IS THE *NEW SURFACE* OF THE OBJECT that was formed upon the re-arrangement of the atoms in reaction to the breaking action!
This means that we can “bring something to the surface”—and we can “cover something up” with “more surface”—but we can‘t ever GET INSIDE of an object with physical force.
The only way to really “get inside” of an object is to cause the surface of the object to be comprised-of the *one atom at the origin of the object*, at which point we don’t have a “massive object” (“object”) to speak of anymore.
Massive objects—objects—by definition, are comprised-of atoms.
And if we can’t ever Truly “get inside” of an object, then what that means is that after we bring part of what’s inside of a LIVING organism to the surface, then there is still an *internal connection* remaining between the part of the organism “on the inside” (the organism’s ORIGIN ATOM) and the part of the organism that was “brought to the surface” (which is RELATIVE-TO the ORIGIN ATOM.)
Ergo, in theory, the part of the organism remaining “on the inside” could be RE-BUILT and REPLACE the part of object that was ”brought to the surface.”
The part of the organism that was “brought to the surface” could, in theory, be broken-down and eliminated by the “surface environment” AND/OR it could continue to function “at the surface” with only a limited connection to the ORIGIN ATOM.
We see this happen with TREES every day!
But sometimes the trees make it difficult to see the forest, and this case is no exception.
The big picture—the forest—we’re investigating is DIRECTION.
We’ve already “codified” our discovery about THE HIERARCHY OF RELATIVITY OF DIRECTIONS.
To re-cap:
All directions are relative-to the Absolute Backward, aka GRAVITY, direction, which is the direction on every ADL Backbone toward the origin of God, with the opposite direction on every ADL Backbone being the Absolute Forward, aka GRAVITY-OPPOSING, direction;
the 3-d directions inside of the universe include the 3-d Down direction, the 3-d Up direction, and the 3-d sideways, aka 3-d Forward, directions;
the 3-d Down direction approximates the Absolute Backward direction, and the 3-d Up direction approximates the Absolute Forward direction, so therefore the 3-d Up direction is relative-to the 3-d Down direction,
and we know that the 3-d sideways directions are relative-to the Absolute Forward direction because going 3-d Down/Absolute Backward will eventually lead to a single point in the 6th dimension, whereas going Absolute Forward/3-d Up or sideways will always lead to different points in the universe.
Now we need to CODIFY OUR DISCOVERY about THE POSITIONAL RELATIVITY OF DIFFERENT THINGS.
Remember when I promised, above, that this discussion of direction—unlike EINSTEIN’S COLOSSAL DENIAL OF REALITY—would make motion analysis SIMPLER NOT MORE COMPLICATED?
Here’s where we HIT THE EASY BUTTON!
We have DISCOVERED that there are *TWO TYPES OF POSITIONAL RELATIVITY* that things can display:
(1) a Mutually-Relative relationship;
or
(2) an Absolute-Relative relationship.
And it is SUPER EASY to tell the difference between the two types of Positional Relativity!
When two things have a Mutually-Relative relationship, the COM of Thing #1 is NOT directly or indirectly BLOCKING the COM of Thing #2 from getting past Thing #1 in the 3-d Down direction or the Absolute Backward direction, *and* both Things have an Absolute-Relative relationship with Thing #3 (which means that both Things are “RIDING” ON TOP of the COM of Thing #3, so then the positions of THING #1 and THING #2 are DEPENDENT-ON the existence of Thing #3.)
In that case we could say, “THING #1 AND THING #2 ARE MUTUALLY-RELATIVE,” and/or we could say, “THING #1 AND THING #2 ARE RELATIVE-TO EACH OTHER.”
Examples of things that have a Mutually-Relative relationship include:
ADL Backbones (which are “riding” on top of the COM of God);
and
3-d sideways directions (which are “riding” on top of the 3-d Up direction of a specific 3-d line that is nearest to an ADL Backbone that defines a path to the COM of God);
and
vehicles on the same road on the earth’s surface (which is “riding” on top of the COM of the earth.)
When two things have an Absolute-Relative relationship, the COM of Thing #1 is directly or indirectly BLOCKING the COM of Thing #2 from getting past Thing #1 in the 3-d Down direction or the Absolute Backward direction—the COM of Thing #2 is ”RIDING” ON TOP of the COM of Thing #1—so then the position of THING #2 is DEPENDENT-ON Thing #1’s existence, but the position of Thing #1 is NOT DEPENDENT-ON Thing #2’s existence.
In other words, the positions of Thing #1 and Thing #2 are MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE.
In that case we could say, “THING #1 IS POSITIONALLY-ABSOLUTE AND THING #2 IS POSITIONALLY-RELATIVE TO THING #1,” or we could simply say, “THING #2 IS RELATIVE-TO THING #1 BUT NOT VICE-VERSA.”
Examples of things that have an Absolute-Relative relationship include:
a higher dimension and a lower dimension;
and
the earth and the objects within the “gravitational space” of the earth;
and
an orbited object and the orbiting object (such as the sun and the earth or the earth and the moon);
and
vehicles and their passengers;
and
a pendulum (or any type of swing) and its supporting structure;
and
God and the universe;
and
light and matter.
We can now better see why light (electromagnetic wave-energy) and matter have an Absolute-Relative relationship inside of the 3-d universe: It’s because God and the universe have an Absolute-Relative relationship (THE 4th DIMENSION IS POSITIONALLY-ABSOLUTE, AND THE 3rd DIMENSION IS POSITIONALLY-RELATIVE TO THE 4th DIMENSION), which means that the source of both matter and light must be the Lumeynes in the 4th dimension, but since we know that it’s impossible for the mass of an Eternal Lumeyne particle to abandon the 4th dimension, we deduce that light is the only thing that actually “broke free” from God—no strings attached!—and therefore LIGHT MUST BE POSITIONALLY-ABSOLUTE AND MATTER MUST BE POSITIONALLY-RELATIVE TO LIGHT.
That explains why light can act-on matter but matter can’t act-on light.
But WHAT DOES IT MEAN, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, when we say that something has “an apparent (relative) speed and an actual speed” or that “the speed of light is a constant”???
To better understand the MEANING of those common proclamations, we can conduct a two-part thought experiment.
Let’s give this thought-experiment a name—“The Two-Part Thought Experiment About Relativity”—so we can refer back to it later, if necessary.
FIRST PART of The Two-Part Thought Experiment About Relativity, regarding the MUTUALLY-RELATIVE RELATIONSHIP between vehicles on the earth’s surface
Imagine that you’re sitting in a vehicle with windows.
Pretend that you fell asleep in your seat, and while you were sleeping—unbeknownst to you—the vehicle started moving, entered a highway, and began traveling in “the slow lane” at a constant 55 MPH (about 88 KPH.)
Next imagine that the ride was so smooth that when you woke-up, you didn’t realize that you were moving, you thought you were still parked.
Now imagine that as soon as you woke-up, you looked out the window and you saw another vehicle—unbeknownst to you, the vehicle was on the same highway in “the fast lane”—passing-by your window at a constant speed that was APPARENTLY 5 MPH (8 KPH.)
QUESTION: What was the ACTUAL speed of the passing vehicle?
ANSWER: 60 MPH (about 96 KPH.)
Explanation: This seems like an ordinary phenomenon that we experience so often that it collapses into a mere observation that defies explanation.
But it’s a lot more than a mere observation; there is a PHYSICAL EXPLANATION for the phenomenon!
The two vehicles moving along different 3-d lines (in different 3-d sideways directions) on the same highway are examples of two things that are in a MUTUALLY-RELATIVE RELATIONSHIP.
When two things are in a MUTUALLY-RELATIVE RELATIONSHIP, neither thing is blocking the other from moving in the 3-d Down or Absolute Backward direction, but both things are “RIDING” ON TOP of the COM of the same Thing #3, so that the positions of THING #1 and THING #2 are DEPENDENT-ON the existence of Thing #3.
And that’s exactly what we see in the case of the two vehicles on the highway: We see that the COMs of the two vehicles are moving along different 3-d lines (different LANES, i.e., different 3-d sideways directions) on the same road on the earth’s surface—so neither vehicle is blocking the other from moving in the 3-d Down direction—and in addition, we see that the COMs of both vehicles are both “riding” on the same COM (the COM of the road on the surface of the earth, which is “riding” on the COM of the earth.)
This means that from the POV of one vehicle (call it vehicle #1), the position of the other vehicle (vehicle #2) is going to SEEM TO BE RELATED to the position of vehicle #1, but in actuality, their positions are SEPARATELY RELATED to the position of the COM of the road on the earth’s surface, i.e., the COM of the earth.
AND WE VERIFIED THIS with personal experience, observing that IF YOU DIDN’T KNOW that you were traveling in “the slow lane” of a highway at a constant speed of 55 MPH (if you thought you were stationary), then when another vehicle passed-by your window at a constant speed of 60 MPH in “the fast lane” (in other words, heading in a different 3-d sideways direction relative-to the COM of the earth), then YOU WOULD EXPERIENCE AN OPTICAL ILLUSION AND *IMAGINE* THAT THE SPEED OF THE OTHER VEHICLE WAS 5 MPH, not 60 MPH!
SECOND PART of The Two-Part Thought Experiment About Relativity, regarding the ABSOLUTE-RELATIVE RELATIONSHIP between matter and light
Consider Albert Einstein’s famous “CHASING A LIGHT BEAM” thought-experiment.
Einstein KNEW that it was IMPOSSIBLE—because it defied the WAVE NATURE of light itself—to POSIT that matter could “catch-up to a light beam” and thereby make the light beam APPEAR to be “stationary,” in the same way that two adjacent vehicles traveling at the same constant speed on the same highway would APPEAR to each other to be stationary.
In the Special Theory of Relativity, Einstein concluded that the reason why matter’s speed, no matter how fast, cannot APPEAR to make an adjacent light beam “slow down” one iota is because TIME SLOWS DOWN AND OBJECTS SHRINK, LENGTH-WISE (in the direction of travel) AS MATTER SPEEDS UP, so that from the POV of matter, light’s speed remains constant.
If that sounds ludicrous today, don’t forget that back in the day, BEFORE EINSTEIN COULD OVERTHROW ISAAC NEWTON ENTIRELY (which Einstein needed to do, otherwise Einstein was going to have to accept Newton’s assumption of Absolute Space, and that assumption would CONTRADICT Einstein’s theory of gravity, under which there is NO ABSOLUTE BACKWARD direction toward God), EINSTEIN HAD TO ACCOMPLISH BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING TASKS, *AND* MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE TO ARGUE WITH HIM UNLESS THOSE PEOPLE HAD A BETTER THEORY OF GRAVITY:
(1) ash-can entirely and replace Newton’s false theory of GRAVITY, which flunked “the vanishing sun test” (discussed above) by concluding that GRAVITY WAS A FORCE EXERTED BY ONE OBJECT OF MATTER ON ANOTHER;
and
(2) explain WHY A LIGHT BEAM moving in one 3-d sideways direction DOESN’T APPEAR TO “SLOW DOWN” AS AN ADJACENT OBJECT (an object moving in another 3-d sideways direction similar to another vehicle on the same highway) SPEEDS-UP.
Einstein had a solution for both conundrums at a time when no one else did.
Not everyone “agreed” with Einstein, but even today, dissenting scientists can’t crack either of those nuts to oust the orgulous Old Scratch licking double-thinker.
People need to aim the physical force of their soul back on the ADL Backbone before they can beat any Old Scratch licking double-thinker.
And that’s not my judgment, it’s Jesus’s (at Matthew 12:26): “And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?”
I’m not trying to dominate the conversation and squelch other voices, but at the same time I can’t wait for an event—a person standing-up to Satan with their own Free Will and saving their own life—that has never happened in the past; and in the meantime, while I sit around and wonder if anyone is ever going to GAF their own life, Satan is violently oppressing me at every opportunity (after getting after it for 58 years; I still wake up screaming), and the only way I can stop the steal is to hit him in the ego part of his egomaniacal irrationality with a properish statement of the Laws of the Universe that he overthrew by causeless coup, and I can’t consider myself to be successful until I have an actual conversation with Jesus about the general plan he has for me to give me a hope and a future.
I submit that EINSTEIN’S GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY MUST BE ASH-CANNED ENTIRELY because God’s existence establishes the Absolute Backward direction (and thus the HIERARCHY OF RELATIVITY OF DIRECTIONS)—which means that DIRECTION EXISTS IN THE UNIVERSE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE’S MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE, and regardless of the POV of the observer—and this makes the ABSOLUTE DIRECTIONLESS General Theory of Relativity flunk “the God Created the Universe test,” and thereby hoist itself on its own petard!
I also submit that I have established that THERE IS A VIABLE PARTICLE THEORY OF GRAVITY, because there is necessarily a one-to-one correspondence between Snowmen of God and sub-atomic particles (SAPs) in the universe, so that one Gravityne in the 5th dimension must be endlessly dedicated to supplying THE CONSTANT PHYSICAL FORCE OF GRAVITY to one SAP in the universe.
I further submit that the mechanism of action of THE PARTICLE FORCE OF GRAVITY will become apparent (in subsequent Articles) as I deduce how SAPs were made from Lumeynes and then arranged into atoms and celestial bodies that formed orbiting relationships; for now we can NOTE that the particle force of gravity couldn’t possibly flunk “the vanishing sun test” because RATHER THAN MATTER BEING THE CAUSE OF OTHER MATTER’S EXPERIENCE OF GRAVITY, Gravitynes supply the physical force of gravity to all matter.
I STILL FURTHER SUBMIT that we don’t need Einstein’s Special Relativity—we don’t need to “change the subject” to TIME DILATION or OBJECT SHRINKAGE or MATTER’S SPEED or THE ACTUAL SPEED OF LIGHT—to explain why the speed of light always appears to be constant from the POV of matter.
The real reason why matter’s speed, no matter how fast, cannot appear to make an adjacent light beam “slow down” one iota is because LIGHT AND MATTER HAVE AN ABSOLUTE-RELATIVE RELATIONSHIP.
Here I quote myself from above:
“We can now better see why light (electromagnetic wave-energy) and matter have an Absolute-Relative relationship inside of the 3-d universe: It’s because God and the universe have an Absolute-Relative relationship (THE 4th DIMENSION IS POSITIONALLY-ABSOLUTE, AND THE 3rd DIMENSION IS POSITIONALLY-RELATIVE TO THE 4th DIMENSION), which means that the source of both matter and light must be the Lumeynes in the 4th dimension, but since we know that it’s impossible for the mass of an Eternal Lumeyne particle to abandon the 4th dimension, we deduce that light is the only thing that actually “broke free” from God—no strings attached!—and therefore LIGHT MUST BE POSITIONALLY-ABSOLUTE AND MATTER MUST BE POSITIONALLY-RELATIVE TO LIGHT.”
QUESTION: How is it possible to “chase” a light beam if you are “RIDING” ON TOP of the light beam (as a person “rides” on top of a roller-coaster), with your position DEPENDENT-ON the existence of the light beam?
ANSWER: You can’t “race against” a light beam because your position does not exist without the light beam existing before you.
The SIMPLE FACT of your POSITIONAL RELATIVITY to light makes it impossible for you to contemplate “chasing”—“catching”—light.
That doesn’t mean that light couldn’t strike you OR that you couldn’t travel at the same speed as light if you were a single particle.
But it does mean that even if you were a single particle traveling at the speed of light, you could not strike light or “catch” a light beam!
Let’s assume that you are a single particle traveling at the speed of light: IN THAT CASE, LIGHT WOULD NOT APPEAR TO “STAND STILL,” IT WOULD STILL APPEAR TO TRAVEL AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT, AND THEREFORE *YOU* WOULD FEEL AS IF *YOU* WERE STANDING STILL, even though YOU WERE REALLY TRAVELING AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT!
This is because YOUR SPEED IS DEPENDENT-ON LIGHT’S SPEED, which means that your speed would not exist without the existence of light’s speed.
So whenever you OBSERVE light—even if you are a single particle traveling at the speed of light—LIGHT’S SPEED WILL REMAIN CONSTANT FROM YOUR POV, and it will SEEM as if you are not moving at all.
To repeat: Your speed and light’s speed are mutually-exclusive, and your speed is dependent-on light’s speed (whatever your speed is, it’s YOUR EXISTENCE that light is making possible), but light’s speed is not dependent-on your existence, so therefore from your POV, light’s speed is ALWAYS “what it is,” which is…wait for it…THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
To repeat AGAIN because it’s so important: When you OBSERVE light’s speed—regardless of what your speed is! YOUR SPEED IS IRRELEVANT! to repeat: LIGHT’S SPEED IS NOT DEPENDENT-ON YOUR EXISTENCE!—light’s speed “is what it is” and it’s always the same (it’s a CONSTANT) because light is always light.
THIS—the speed of light being a constant from the POV of matter—HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH “MAXWELL’S EQUATIONS” OR ANY OTHER MATH.
QUESTION: But what does the speed of light being a constant have to do with “the downfall of the great achievement of nineteenth century physics, the ether [ether is the medium that physicists said filled ‘empty space’ and served to transmit electromagnetic and gravitational forces], which then provided the basis for all electromagnetic theory” (see University of Pittsburgh, “Chasing a Beam of Light: Einstein’s Most Famous Thought Experiment”)?
ANSWER: Saying that there is a medium such as ether that “carries” electromagnetic force (light) through the universe is nonsensical; it’s like saying that the green cylinder carries the yellow sphere in the illustration below:
In joy, Frank