Simple explanation Einstein's theory of relativity
and another thought about our existence

Table of contents:

0.

Brief overview of my personal view (added in December 2024)

Again as I think (see further explanation in the website).

• Thanks to figures 6, 7 and 7a, I now believe in a universal local time. But this local time is expressed in the total distance traveled by a ray of light since the beginning of the Big Bang, or suppose e.g. a 300,000 km ray of light reflecting between 2 mirrors at the point where the Big Bang started. The corresponding local unit of time u indicates that this ray of light has traveled 300,000 km per in that local unit of time u (which is unknown). Every ray of light where and how it originates always travels the same distance spatially in that local unit of time u. Everyone or an observer in motion also sees that ray of light pass by relatively (that is relativity), 300,000 km of light determines its local unit of time, e.g. our defined 1 second on Earth for a stationary observer (on an Earth traveling through space). That local unit of time u is created by opposition from space, a ray of light cannot move faster. A randomly moving object also experiences opposition from space, this opposition is synchronized with the observed length of the passing ray of light, e.g. a moving clockwork runs just as slower as a moving observer sees that ray of light passing by. Also in a black hole, the universal time applies to a ray of light, but the local time is very slow due to the enormous positive energy density, but that ray of light ends to exist and its positive energy clumps together with the other positive energy. In my opinion, it is not only due to the movement of objects that increases the opposition in space, but because of the positive energy density of objects in general that can also change due to other causes, of course the positive energy density increases due to movement (supplied positive energy), but also due to other supplied positive energy, shrinking also takes place, so with larger positive energy densities, the passing light is perceived more slowly and therefore also in a slower time (duration increases), on balance the same speed of light, so the opposition through space for each positive energy density is synchronous with the observed speed of light. So, light is not counteracted extra (have already changed this in my website together with several other changes), but that the opposition of objects in space at larger positive energy densities becomes greater and therefore one sees synchronously less light passing by per local slower unit of time, I think that relationship is made by the negative energy in space together with shrinking by positive energy (the atoms of objects are closer together).
• Everything can be explained with energy, but no one knows what energy is. Both local time and gravity are determined by positive energy densities. Mass is positive energy in objects, but light has positive energy without mass (because it is not a particle of an object, it does exchange positive energy). Local time should be seen as a value in a three-dimensional world such as temperature.
• Matter in motion or increasing positive energy density shrinks (the atoms of objects are closer together), in a black hole matter shrinks to the maximum.
• Timelessness on e.g. a photon can possibly be explained that the photon (or possibly also other particles) is in 2 worlds at the same time, so that entanglement of particles can be explained.
• Gravity (see chapter 4b and figure 8) is the granting / returning of positive energy at objects at the atomic level between the attracting object and the attracted object via the gravitational field. This has to do with positive energy densities. Light can also be attracted because positive energy is granted at the photon level (light particle). With an object in orbit around another object (e.g. the Earth and Moon), there is an equilibrium situation in which microscopically as much positive energy is granted as given back. The attracting force between positive energies determines gravity in the general theory of relativity, paths of moving objects or light curves due to that attraction in the valid laws of physics (pure mathematics) but it is not the other way around, that gravity arises from curved orbits or spacetime. Curved orbits or spacetime are created because the attracting objects are spherical. Just like without gravity, positive energies are opposed by space. This opposition only becomes visible when an object or light (positive energy) is only really present at a location, without object or light (positive energy) at a location in space there is no local time (is then not measurable, such as the universal local time) and there is no curvature of missing paths.
• For every observer in motion (relativity) all laws of physics apply, but the real values found according to those laws of physics have the most meaning for an observer who is actually present at an event (in a broader sense, or is present in the same local time, can be e.g. the whole Earth), e.g. seen from a moving train the rails move and the local time at those rails seems to slow down from that moving train but that is a local time seen from an imaginary moving clock. A local clock along the rails does not move, but the one in the moving train does. Seen from the Big Bang, the train moves more than the rails, so the local time in the moving train is really slower. For example, the damage of an atomic bomb along the rails is not seen bigger (in terms of energy) from the moving train.
• If you believe in a universal time like I do, you can deduce that you only see every image that arises a little later because everything is in motion, so you don't see the "now" immediately. On the subject of shrinking on this website (the atoms of objects are closer together), one thought is that a vertical ray of light (observed from a movement in the x direction or horizontal direction) can have some delay for observation, so that thought is not so strange.
• (Aug. 2025 added) Just a brief overview of how I perceive relativity. In the universe, everything is in real motion relative to the Big Bang, so each object observes a part of the universal time (the distance light travels in universal time), and that is its own local time as we know our own local time on Earth. Just like light (universal time), every object experiences real opposition from space, and this real opposition for an object runs in sync with the observed universal time (the distance light travels in universal time); the more opposition, the more energy this costs, the greater the energy density, the slower the universal time is observed. The opposition in space is equally great in all directions when viewed from one point, just as universal time is the same in all directions. If you want to compare local time in a certain direction with universal time, as I think you must compare that universal time in the same direction (the distance traveled by light in universal time and local time).
  If 2 different objects have a velocity difference v, for example, an observer passes by an object with a velocity v, it is mathematically established that, from the perspective of either the observer or the object itself, a similarly smaller portion of the universal time (the distance light travels in universal time) is observed from the other in their own local time. Therefore, both observe that other local time to be slower by the same factor. Thus, both can calculate how long light would take to travel as observed from both (which is always a portion of the universal time, or the distance light travels in universal time).
  But what registers the real local clocks of those calculations, for convenience an atomic clock that works with light, it cannot be more accurate, but every other clock registers the same as the construction allows? And let me use again the example of the moving train car over the stationary rails. The calculations already made from both sides are correct, but now it is about the real movements seen from the Big Bang, who moves the most or who really moves relative to the other. Because a stationary clock in the train car really moves relative to the rails, the calculations from the perspective of the rails can also truly be observed on that clock in the train car, the clock viewed as an object experiences more opposition from space, its energy density increases and its local time therefore goes slower. A stationary clock viewed as an object along the rails does not experience any more opposition from the perspective of the train car, so it indicates its own local time that is independent of the train car; likewise, the local energy of the clock remains the same. Only an really moving clock runs slower. So an object like a local clock is observed at a velocity v, but what is important is whether it is really moving. From the perspective of the train car, all physical calculations are interconnected; if one observes a slower local time in another, then their energy density must also have increased, etc. However, all of this would be exactly correct if one sees something really moving from the train car at velocity v, for example, a mini train inside the train car.
  How could one determine what really moves between two objects? If that were possible, synchronize both clocks present on those objects at a starting point, the clock that registers the least time after a certain distance runs the slowest, or the corresponding object moves faster than the other object.
  At the very bottom in figures 4, 4a, 5, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d and 5e, it may become clearer. I have also been able to improve the formulas now (see 5a, and as I see it of course) so that if something does not really move, its local time and energy also do not change.
  

1.

Introduction

When I write about the diabolical USA here, I mean those in power and not the ordinary people, who are usually willing but also very manipulable.

The content of both related websites "Simple explanation Einstein's theory of relativity" (printed out about 125 pages of text) and "Stop the power of veto in the United Nations" has been on the internet for about 10 years (2012 – March 2022), with our mysterious existence linked to the United Nations in a personal attempt to significantly improve life on our Earth through intense cooperation. I strongly believe in that. Out of frustration because the diabolical USA has managed to drive a war between Russia and the Ukraine in which the hatred of Russia has become so great that we have been thrown back in time 50 years (more explanation later in the United Nations website), the diabolical USA very fortunately, I have removed the entire content with the feeling that the Earth is a planet where great backwardness reigns and it may take another 1000 years (or never) does that cooperation ever want to be improved. I had already cleaned both domains, deleted all backups, the original texts and documentation have been definitively lost, all textbooks have been given away, but I still want to add some text once afterwards as a conclusion to this personal endeavor. I will not be busy with the topics after this and am very happy that life is short-lived on this stupid planet (fortunately, I am already a senior, do not leave children behind so I am not directly responsible for their future, but I am worried about the next generations who will have to deal with the same misery century after century due to the lack of growing insight). At the moment (will pass) I only see idiots around me, a kind of half savages that mentally linger on the same level century after century, technically one does grow.

My website "Stop the power of veto in the United Nations" is very anti USA thinking (more explanation later in that website). Remarkably, both websites have always been at the top of Bing in both Dutch and English with simple keywords. In Google only in Dutch but in English almost impossible to find, so I have never been able to distribute my texts well worldwide. I've seen that with other critical texts as well, Google is a public machine for the local language / country. In English, it is mainly a public machine for the USA, which is why the inhabitants of the USA themselves do not get to read these critical texts. Just like in other superpowers. Therefore, everything that is public like on the internet should fall under the United Nations, then you really have the greatest possible freedom to achieve. But yes, from the other side you can also cause conflicts through incitement, as we have seen, for example, in the Middle East and Ukraine. But in a United Nations without veto rights and with world army, this chance has of course become very low.

2.

Simple explanation Einstein's theory of relativity

i) Sources consulted are the book "Very Special Relativity: An Illustrated Guide" by S.B., Wiki miscellaneous information, some scientific reports, and supplemented with some personal thoughts

At the beginning of chapter 5 there is a link to the old content of this website, found later in 2023 in a web archive.

All the original text has been lost, so I will have to bring up texts that are still in my memory. Perhaps this has the advantage that I now have to force myself to explain certain things more briefly and concisely and in a logical order, the inspiration for long explanations is gone (so no more detailed explanation). This may have yielded an idea to also reason vertical shrinkage, see text (now I understand why Einstein found shrinkage with gravitational waves, via energy increase, it's already in the basic theory). And again as I have thought of it myself in addition to facts from the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, whether it is the truth others have to judge, or it may give new ideas. It has now become a short summary (printed out again about 70 pages due to new topics), for a complete understanding as I think, this summary must be read in full up to the last sentence because I always add / build something up.

In 2012, the idea of the timeless, a timeless connection between entangled particles, came to me. The concept of entangled particles in quantum mechanics is that one particle can be on Earth, the other particle on Mars, and because they are entangled with each other, one can change a property of one particle that is then immediately passed on to the other particle. One cannot explain this yet, but my idea is that it is a timeless connection. Then I started to delve into the concept of time (duration) in Einstein's special theory of relativity and finally unravel it in quantum mechanics. As described above, I unfortunately could not get that far at the last minute, and now my interest is gone. But I do want to give an overview now, and thus pass it on to others, how I view these matters now, and briefly summarized. Then the last 13 years have not been completely lost time.

(v = velocity of any object e.g. a rocket; c = the speed of light of 300,000 km / second, this second can also be a delayed second; or I sometimes indicate the distance with c = 300,000 km, so that one can calculate the number of seconds by distance; by an object I mean matter to distinguish from light which is not matter, consists of other particles; m = the mass of matter, indicates the amount of matter, since Einstein it is actually the amount of energy, light does not consist of matter, but does have energy; time delay factor = √(1 - (v² / c²)); γ = (1 / √1 - (v² / c²)); when I mention a number of x seconds s here, then those are the normal seconds as we know them, sometimes it is added fast or slow s, but that is only to emphasize whether those seconds come from the fast or slow time, but they remain the standard seconds s, e.g. if they are slow seconds, 0.75s means that if 1 fast second has passed, so 1s, that 0.75 slow seconds have passed simultaneously, so 0.75s, so part of a fast second, a fast second has a short duration, a slow second has a longer duration)

• I think it came out of nowhere, positive and negative energy, where positive energies attract each other (think gravity) and positive energy and negative energy repel each other. At the Big Bang, this energy arose out of nowhere, where matter (and light) is represented by the positive energy, and space itself is represented by the negative energy. So matter (positive energy) experiences opposition in the space of the negative energy that must be overcome. No one knows what energy is, but that it cannot be lost and explain all movements arithmetically. Positive energy is stored in particles (space also consists of transparent particles but with negative energy) and during the Big Bang everything was set in motion and thus everything got positive energy, so that this model is mathematically correct. As is well known, we ourselves are also constantly in motion via the Earth, which travels through space as part of a system as a result of the Big Bang. It is possible that around some objects far in space there is more negative energy than usual (or compressed), so that the velocities of those rotating objects may be higher than expected. The law of conservation of energy says that no energy can be lost, and that is also evident from this reasoning. If energy were lost, the amount of positive and negative energy would no longer be added together to nothing. It is true if the same amount of positive and negative energy would disappear. If the universe were to expand, so there would be space and therefore negative energy, it seems to me that positive energy would be added somewhere (possibly from the Big Bang and out of sight). Also, I think that positive energy only exists in particle form, so particles are purely positive energy, anything that costs positive energy is always an exchange of particles. If the positive energy of an object increases while the number of particles remains the same, e.g. an object that travels through space at a great velocity, the positive energy of those particles increases or the energy density increases. With light, this seems to be different. Light consists of particles called photons, and mostly have the same positive energy, if one allows the energy of a light wave to increase in some way, then the number of particles or photons increases, so the energy per photon mostly remains the same. But if light is created on a moving object, the energy of a photon will be slightly higher than if that object is stationary. This later makes it clear why the speed of light remains constant but time passes more slowly (or duration increases). But it is true that the energy of photons (light particles) differ slightly if the frequency of light is different (see later).
• In my opinion, gravity is the phenomenon that temporarily gives an object positive energy to another object in order to attract it, actually, the pursuit of a new energy density including the energy of the attracted object, but that energy density may also remain the same in the end. Because during the route travelled, the speed of the attracting object increases, increasing its positive energy, once on the surface of the object that gave the positive energy, the positive energy granted is returned, actually, the new energy density is then reached together with the attracted object. An object that moves at a certain speed in orbit around the Earth is in an equilibrium situation, where microscopically it always gives a piece of positive energy back to the Earth and is given the same piece of positive energy by the Earth. So you can also do this for planets around the Sun, the Moon around the Earth etc. Weightlessness in a spacecraft, for example, arises because the maximum positive energy has already been granted to you by gravity, if you go / can move from that situation you no longer experience (extra) gravity and you can move with little positive energy. (November 2024) See my view of gravity now in chapter 4b (and with a personal thought as to why gravity seems only to occur on a macro level).
• The concept of time (duration) is often done enigmatically such as going back in time (only science fiction) etc., but time (duration) is nothing special, it is the opposition of the negative energy in space that all objects and light experience when moving (a kind of friction but without energy loss). With time (duration) one measures movement. For movement one needs space, so time (duration) and space are therefore intertwined with each other. With the aid of time (duration), we actually compare a standard movement with the movement to be measured. The standard movement is derived from a day duration, between midnight to midnight, finally this is recorded in some mechanism or even in an atomic clock, a certain standard movement corresponds to 1 second, or 1 minute or 1 hour etc. So if we are going to measure the time (duration) of a random movement, then we can say that a certain number of meters are traveled in a certain time (duration) e.g. 3 meters / second. In fact, this means that 3 meters have moved while the Earth has moved a certain number of meters around its axis (1 second), so there are 2 movements compared to each other. Movement of an object (positive energy) in space experiences opposition from the negative energy, but also on Earth, but on Earth a movement also experiences friction by other particles (as opposed to one-off required positive energy in the space for movement, friction continuously costs positive energy). A clock is made in such a way that it is only sensitive to the opposition of the negative energy as in space, so measure the time on Earth just like in space, if it storms on Earth the clock will not be bothered by it. Why does movement in space only take one-off positive energy? Because the transparent particles with negative energy cannot absorb positive energy, they do have a repellent effect.
• It was discovered in physics that measuring the speed of light, with a clock, always yielded the same number, whether one was not in motion, or was in motion at high speed together with the clock taken (below in case of simultaneity I have made an example where this is clearly visualized so that this is less difficult to understand). Via Lorentz this was the beginning of Einstein's theory of relativity, it turned out that time went slower (or duration increases) with movement (so with the clock that is also in motion). So in motion it takes longer to observe that light has travelled a distance of 300,000 km, e.g. on a moving plateau (300,000 km long) through the space on which a ray of light is observed. This is not that difficult to explain. First, read the explanation of universal local time at the very top and the natural synchronization (a.o. energy dependent) of observed light for a moving object or observer due to increased opposition from space. If an object moves faster through space, this costs more positive energy once due to the opposition of the negative energy (if you think away the friction, you can compare this by walking slowly or quickly through water). Suppose this object is a clock, then it costs once more positive energy for that clock as an object (the total of all parts), so the average energy of all particles increases, therefore the opposition also increases, if one were to create light in this clock then the energy of a light particle (photon) is slightly increased compared to the clock stationary, so light also gets more opposition and due to the natural synchronization (a.o. energy dependent), less observed light for a moving object or observer, and light determines the time (duration), so compared to the clock stationary, all movements go slower either the clock runs slower or time goes slower (or duration increases). One could get movements faster with extra internal energy (then it no longer functions mechanically as a clock), but one cannot increase the energy internally of the photons but one cannot change the natural synchronization (a.o. energy dependent) of observed light so the time (duration) does not change. So, for example, in a moving person everything goes slower, including the aging process, so a person could get older, this of course only applies to high velocities and our body may not be set up for that, so in practice this may not be possible. The delay factor for time (or duration increases) depends on the velocity of the object (can be a clock) and the speed of light. So the speed of light is also intertwined with the opposition or the negative energy in space. You can also say that the speed of light is the maximum velocity that is possible due to that opposition or negative energy. So with more opposition, less light is observed due to the natural synchronization (a.o. energy dependent) within a moving object (which could be a clock, a train, the Earth, etc.), so time goes slower (or duration increases), the local speed of light remains the same (but in a slower time or longer duration). So the opposition to light particles (photons) by the negative energy So, the natural synchronization (a.o. energy dependent) of observed light for a moving object or observer is such that the local speed of those light particles (or light) is always the same (in any time, fast or slow, or short / long duration). So the opposition to light particles (photons) by the negative energy is such that the local speed of those light particles (or light) is always the same (in any time, fast or slow, or short / long duration). So the speed of light is a constant in nature that indicates that the maximum distance to be covered within a time (duration) is always the same. That constant (or time / duration) is encapsulated in space and in the transparent particles with negative energy. Einstein also found the famous formula e = m.c², so all matter is a certain amount of positive energy according to a fixed formula. If that matter moves faster (in space), it costs more positive energy once, the mass (m) therefore increases, so the total positive energy remains e = m.c². This was quite easy to deduce from what Maxwell had already discovered with the momentum for light e / p = c for all observers (the momentum is the amount of motion, for matter it is p = m . v). Even Lorentz had already discovered that Maxwell's laws of nature continued to apply to the so-called Lorentz transformations that belong to moving observers. Therefore, Einstein decided that several laws of physics should remain the same for moving observers (relativity). So, the law of conservation of mass was abolished (Newton), so the mass increases with greater velocity and so does the energy. So with the theory of relativity, the conservation laws for energy and momentum still apply.
• This above also clarifies even more with energy. If an object (e.g. a rocket) is allowed to move faster in space, this costs extra energy, the energy of that object increases to overcome the greater opposition. So the average energy of all the particles in that object increases to overcome that greater opposition. If something is made to move in that object, e.g. a ball, then that ball already has extra energy in it from the opposition of that object (is distributed over all parts of that object, including that ball). With the help of extra energy, one can make that ball move, but due to the greater opposition, that movement is slower. Also light particles go slower, because those photons have a slightly higher energy when creating light, and therefore more opposition, actually the opposition of light particles is a combination of their energy and frequency of light, so time also goes slower (or duration increases). Light particles are also observed more slowly because due to the natural synchronization (a.o. energy dependent), less light is observed for a moving object or observer (light particles only have opposition in space for the universal local time, that opposition is a combination of their energy and frequency of light). The opposition of matter is greater than that of light, so the velocity of motion of matter is always slower. But that extra energy for that movement, for example, of that ball is comparable to if that object was stationary. Because that ball goes slower, it also costs less energy compared to the fact that the object was stationary. So if everything slows down in an object that moves faster, that doesn't mean that one needs extra energy to move as when the object was stationary. For example, on Earth one can move quickly or slowly, which costs more or less energy. In the example below about simultaneity, a certain movement is viewed more slowly simultaneously. One could well make that movement go faster if you do not look at simultaneity, but the movement of light does not get faster, so time always goes slower (or duration increases).
• I have to explain things even better for the newcomer. Time (duration) exists on / around a moving object, that object can be e.g. the Earth (moving through space, the Earth has our time / duration), or a moving train, or two birds with one stone, a moving clock (which points to its own time / duration). So when an object moves you indicate the velocity of that object in your own time (say local time / duration), e.g. of a moving train on Earth, but the time (duration) of around / on that moving train is another time that goes slower according to the above (or increasing duration). Also, by time I do not mean what time it is, but the passage of time (duration), so the clock starts ticking faster or slower by the opposition of the negative energy in space. The standard motion seemed to be the rotation of the Earth, so we expressed the time (duration) in seconds. But because you can take that movement further or closer to the axis of the Earth, you cannot consider it as the standard movement for comparison, that must be a movement that always yields the same distance in 1 fast or slower second, so the standard movement is the movement of light in 1 second, fast or slow (short / longer duration). In every situation, light moves 300,000 km per (local) second, so via the path of light you can also calculate the associated time (duration) in (local) seconds (fast or slow, short / longer duration). All other times of movement of objects must always correspond to what distance light could have travelled in the meantime, there is only 1 time (duration). Only a moving object (i.e. matter) has a (local) time (duration) around / on that object, light is not matter but can only be generated on an object, light does not just consist of itself, so the speed of light (which is always the same) is always determined in the local time (duration) of the object where it originated (e.g. a lamp, the Sun etc.), light is always generated in the universal local time, a natural synchronization (a.o. energy dependent) ensures that less light is observed for a moving object or observer..
• You can easily deduce a formula that the delay factor of time (√(1 - (v² / c²)); later I find 1 - (v² / c²)) literally has to do with the positive energy growth of the object ((e_{k_new} / e_{t_old}) = (½.m.v² / m.c²) = -½.(1 - (v² / c²)) + ½). So if an object travels faster this costs extra positive energy, the ratio to its (old) total positive energy, is the delay factor, so time / duration (a traveling clock) is related to the growth of positive energy, and also the natural synchronization (a.o. energy dependent) that less light is observed. Because of the Big Bang, the Earth travels through space at a certain velocity and that includes time (duration) as we know it. If that Earth were to travel through space at a greater velocity, our time would be slower (or increasing duration). Gravity therefore also influences time (duration), a clock in space runs faster than on Earth. Because the amount of average positive energy of that clock or other object on Earth is greater than in space. Even a hanging clock above the earth's surface gets positive energy from the Earth, so time runs slower (or increasing duration), but faster than on Earth itself. The growth of positive energy does not only have to come through movement, every growth of positive energy influences time (duration). For example, think of a walking male on the train in such a way that the male stands still in front of you. The positive energy of that walking man has grown through 2 movements, the train and his walking, therefore his watch runs slower than yours although it seems that both are stationary. So you can imagine that with an increase in energy due to a passing gravitational wave, time slows down for a while and the matter shrinks (see later), as the latter has already been demonstrated in practice. (November 2024) I think there is little gravity between atoms because both atoms have the same positive energy density, but the moment they are given extra positive energy, it does not happen simultaneously, where the atoms move towards each other for a while, so that the whole object shrinks or expands the other way around, then they all have the same energy density again and have little gravity again, there is no longer any reason to move (see Chapter 4b).
• In my opinion, the time delay only applies to an object where there is positive energy growth. So if A really moves from B, then the time on A goes slower from B reasoning (or increased duration), but the other way around the time from A to B goes faster (or decreased duration), because B doesn't really move from A. So in reasoning one has to figure out where there is positive energy growth. One can, of course, both be in motion. But it is true that both A and B cannot perceive whether a time (duration) is slower or faster for the other (if one does not know it), one perceives events in the other as if they take place in their own time (duration). This is clearly reflected in the example of a photon below (but also applies to a moving object). Whether the photon was launched at A or B, both observe the same distance travelled as if the photon had been launched at their own, so in their own associated time (duration). See my conclusion at the end of this chapter 2 (October 2024). Conclusion: relativity is only about motion to reason simultaneous locations relative to each other. But the real motions themselves have an effect on time and energy for those moving objects themselves, which is different from Newton's, which is again part of the total theory of relativity.
  So if A really moves relative to B, the reasoned times and energy are correct. If one argues that B is moving with respect to A when that is not correct, one can reason with relativity the correct simultaneous locations with respect to each other by reasoning an imaginary clock at B (which also slows down with respect to A), but the real energy and times are not known.
• It also follows from the theory of relativity that an observer of a moving object sees that object narrower, which is called length contraction. Length contraction is considered something visual but not real, so the object does not really narrow down. That is due to contradictions because people think (I think) that above both A and B see time slowing down (or increased duration) with the other and that is incorrect in my opinion. I have shown with drawings of a moving wagon (documentation is no longer available, yes, see chapter 5 and web archive) that the theory of relativity can only be correct if the delay factor and the length contraction (which is real, I call that shrinkage factor, a moving ruler really shrinks in all directions, or by positive energy growth, the atoms are closer together, it really shrinks and there is no longer any visual or mathematical length contraction) the square of the value is now known. Later I was even able to deduce this from an old drawing (thought, see chapter 5 and web archive). One takes a moving object B and lets a ray of light reflect from a stationary object A. Then the time (duration) of that ray of light on the way there is seen shorter (1 - (v / c)) from B, and back longer (1 + (v / c)) seen from B. One can then say, on balance on B only (1 - (v / c)).(1 + (v / c)) = 1 – (v² / c²) ray of light is observed. (Sept. 2025 added) This is illustrated in figure 5c.. I think that's why all matter in a black hole shrinks into particles because of the enormous positive energy growth. When heated, matter can sometimes expand or shrink during cold, I think these are local effects that come on top of it. Going back to that documentation, this meant the following. If one fires a photon under a moving train car, and a photon along the railway but also under that train car, then both must be observed simultaneously in the same location by an observer along the railway (or two detectors on the track), and that location under the train car is a little further away due to the theory of the length contraction, so this seems impossible to me, which is why I am thinking of shrinking (see later) so that those locations become equal. If less ray of light is observed means that this light is observed compressed, the photons are closer together, so no photons disappear. And Less observed ray of light does mean that the (local) time slows down (duration increases). You can also see this in the drawing below of the moving train carriage. A ray of light of 1.5c is reflected from a standstill, without length contraction 0.75c is the simultaneous moment in the train car, in that point 1 – (v² / c²) less ray of light is observed in the train car (2x), so the (local) time slows down (duration increases) by a factor of 1 – (v² / c²). Actually, with this formula 1 – (v² / c²) you wouldn't even have to think about shrinkage, but vertically it wouldn't be correct, but as reasoned under, that could be compensated with a correction in simultaneity, with a vertical ray of light, the formula 1 – (v² / c²) is very clear, but let's analyze further. But shrinkage does fit well with the consequences of passing gravitational waves (see later) and what might happen in a black hole. But as reasoned under, it must still be shrinkage, otherwise the length of objects with a laser (so light) measured in a stationary system would be different than in a moving system by an observer in the stationary system.
• It must now be clear what exactly universal local time (duration) is, it is the opposition that a standard movement (light) experiences in space, the negative energy as I think. A natural synchronization (a.o. energy dependent) ensures that less light or local time is observed for a moving object or observer who also experiences opposition from space. In a black hole, there is 1 point where the time is 0, or timeless. That is because no movement is possible at that point, the amount of positive energy or particles is infinitely large, even though this would be a finite amount, by approaching that point infinitely close, the positive energy in that point becomes infinitely large. Remember that the black hole as a whole is also in motion, but in that one point no movement is possible anymore so there can be no time (duration). This is a state of timelessness. Another state of timelessness as I think is between particles that are entangled with each other. The information between them is infinitely fast or immediate so that there is no opposition. I even have the idea that time (duration) only exists with matter or positive energy. And that what causes the opposition, the negative energy, is itself timeless, it only responds to positive energy. This also fits with the Higgs field, that all matter gets mass, so energy, and therefore undergoes time, if there is no mass or therefore energy present, then it is timeless.
• According to my view, that would mean that space is also timeless, only the matter (or light) in that space experiences time (duration). I also think that time (duration) is an emergent property (gravity too), it only exists at the matter level (or light wave level), so the average positive energy per particle (for a light wave only 1 photon, light consists of particles (or light waves) called photons, they are energy packets). So around or in matter the same time (duration) prevails, also between particles, but at the level of a particle the time is also 0 (timeless). Because of these emergent properties, it could therefore be possible that all particles within matter are timelessly connected to each other through some channel, they immediately pass on the information to the emergent properties. With the discovery of entangled particles, it may have been discovered that light is able to lay such a channel (of negative energy). Light has an important role, it consists of energy packets, and is therefore also important within matter, so it must be faster than matter.
• I can now combine all of the above and simultaneity into a clear example. See this example in Figures 1 and 2 below. In fact, light can also be used as a clock, because 300,000 km of light is always 1 second through the natural synchronization, even if time goes slower (or increased duration). For example, if an object moves away from us, so that time there goes slower (or increased duration), simultaneity or the same moment with us, is determined by the converted faster time (or decreased duration) but also by the distance to us, because light must also bridge that distance and that also takes time (duration). If, for example, 2 people stand still in relation to each other, then events are simultaneous for them, the clock indicates the same time for both. If those 2 people are in a moving train, ditto, the slower running clock indicates the same time for both. But simultaneity in movements, e.g. between the stationary person and a person in a moving train, is different. The further forward that person is on that train, the longer it takes for it to be simultaneous with that stationary person. The Lorentz transformation is a formula in which between each location and time with us, a location and time on that other object can be determined so that they are simultaneous, with a clock on both sides one can not calculate simultaneity, so distance also plays a major role. My own example now. Suppose that a moving train car has a velocity of v = ½c and that a ray of light is created in that train car (on the far left of the wall), an observer A travels with that train car and measures the speed of light in a slower time (or increased duration). If, as observer B, one also measures that ray of light along the rails, so in a faster time (or decreased duration), it must also measure the same speed in its faster time (or increased duration). With the Lorentz transformation, it is then found that observer B, for example, measures the ray of light after 1.5 seconds at a distance of 1.5c, the speed of light, the train car has traveled 0.75c in distance after 1.5 seconds, within the train car the ray of light has traveled 0.866c in 0.866 seconds, so also the speed of light, the delay factor is 0.866, converted into the faster second of observer B this would be 1 second. So just by comparing the clocks this would not be enough, in the train car only 1 fast second has passed (or 0.866 slower second) and outside the train car 1.5 faster second. The beginning of the ray of light is seen by observer B at 1.5c, the total distance travelled should be at 0.75c + 0.866c = 1.616c for observer B, but because observer B sees length contraction, he still sees the ray of light at 1.5c. These moments are simultaneous for both observer A and B. I had shown with drawings (own theory, see chapter 5 and web archive) that it can only be correct if matter shrinks in all directions (atoms are closer together) and takes the current time delay factor squared (which is also the shrinkage factor, later I will explain it exactly), so one must calculate all numbers with the Lorentz transformation and multiply again by the current delay factor. Why does one not come out of that mathematically, because in my opinion the units are shrinking and that cannot roll out of the formulas, because it is also an additional fact. So the unit of time shrinks (or increased duration), and the length unit shrinks, so the train car and a measuring rod taken with it and light shrink in all directions, due to the natural synchronization, less light is observed. So there is no longer a length contraction, but a shrinking in all directions, therefore observer A and B both see the beginning of the ray of light converted at 1.5c, for observer A the numbers are still correct as it measures but has no idea of shrinking units. Do not think that 0.75 is always half, e.g. when the velocity of the train car is 0.25c, the numbers are clearly different. This way you can also create a ray of light in the train car the other way around, so from right to left. It also goes in the same time (duration). You can calculate that the moments of observer A (Aug. 2025, corrected) in the locations 0c / 0s and -2.598c / 2.589s are simultaneous with the moments of observer B in the locations 0c / 0s and -1.5c / 1.5s, this is a bit more difficult to imagine (due to different directions) but is mathematically correct. At the front of the train car, the points of simultaneity are different, but still 1 fast second has passed in the train car. E.g. in front, after 0.866 slow seconds their is simultaneity along the railway with 1 fast second at a distance of 0.5c. See figure 2 at the very bottom, later I show something else with figure 1. In that other point was simultaneity only after 1.5 fast seconds. Another brief example, but now of an object. If observer B were to move a ball at a velocity of 0.75c along the railway line, observer A would observe it at a velocity of 0.4c, argues according to observer B. But even if observer A were to move a ball in the train car at velocity 0.4c (same movement), argues according to observer B, observer B would observe it at a velocity of 0.75c, so just the other way around (in reality, observer A sees it slow down with observer B, but that's for later). Then you might think, if observer B does not let the ball move itself but observes the ball in the same way, is the explanation really opposition, because no ball moves at B? Yes, because the total opposition to really making the ball move, is equal to the total opposition of the ball to observer A, due to the movement of the train car and the ball inside the train car.
• Can you now conclude in retrospect that there is 1 time (duration) in nature with which all events in the universe can be recorded in chronological order? Yes, I am inclined to say that there is a universal time (duration), but we do not know. We can only record all events around us in our own time (duration) from our own (local) time (duration) on Earth, so relatively speaking. Similarly, possibly from other planets at different velocities through space, conversions will be difficult to capture simultaneity or impossible due to the absence of all the facts. But times are only different if the velocity differences between objects (e.g. planets) are very large, and I think that's not too bad, so time (duration) is roughly the same, so to speak. Only where the energy density is high as in a black hole etc. will this be different. When I see my own example with observer A and B, I see that the photon (beginning ray of light) has in fact spatially traveled the same path for both, but observer A does not experience this. So there is only 1 distance travelled for the photon, and that is 1.5c. Suppose that at the beginning of the Big Bang a first ray of light has arisen, this also includes a certain time (duration), and the length of this ray of light can be converted to this universal time (duration). In this way, one can record every event in the universe in this universal time (duration). Time (duration) is encapsulated in space. But it has only meaning since the beginning of the Big Bang!
• First, we recorded the duration of a whole day in a mechanical clock and called it time (duration). Later in an atomic clock that was even more precise. We discovered that in our unit 1 second the light traveled a certain way (300,000km). We discovered that if we tested this again in motion, the clock was also in motion, the clock ran slower but that at exactly 1 whole slower second, the light had traveled the same way again (so again 300,000km). So we learned that the opposition for all types of movements (e.g. in a clock) just like light, is the same around / on an object, all those movements have positive energy as a common factor. So light can also be used as a clock. We also learned that a string of light spatially for various observers in motion travels the same way but is simultaneously observed shorter because the (local) time goes slower (a natural synchronization (a.o. energy dependent) ensures that less light or local time is observed for a moving object or observer who also experiences opposition from space). So through a detour, time (duration) is actually the way that an amount of light in space has traveled simultaneously (or in a light clock).
• Furthermore, I would like to explain some things that are still in my memory. So I think that positive energies attract each other, so light can also be deflected at the Sun, because only so much positive energy has a hold on light particles. For example, that light should light up during deflection because it is temporarily given extra positive energy. Gravitational waves are escaped positive energies, which when passing by can temporarily increase the positive energy of matter, making time slower (or increased duration) and matter shrinking. In experiments where the temperature approaches 0 degrees Kelvin, one sometimes sees the same particle in several places at the same time, this also has to do with local timelessness in my opinion. It is thought that quanta (smallest amounts) exist in nature, just as a photon of light is the smallest positive energy package. Similarly, with movements, it is thought that there are smallest distances. This then means that an object moves from location to location and therefore no continuous movement. Depending on velocity, it remains in a location for a while and then, according to my own thought, timelessly to the next location. Such a location could be a transparent particle of negative energy. I think also (forgot reasoning, not at all, see chapter 5 and web archive) that if one could slow down an object with a rocket in the direction of the Big Bang, so the opposite direction, one ends up with a photon (light particle), all other positive energy is converted in one way or another along the way.
• (January 2024) I've been working on this topic for years now and suddenly think that shrinkage of matter is already present in the basic theory, the formulas remain the same but you have to look at it differently (as I think). Therefore, I can now also understand that matter shrinks in gravitational waves (has already been demonstrated), it must already be present in the basic theory. Length contraction is not something visual, but real shrinkage, then mathematical length contraction no longer occurs in the existing or own units. I think it works like this. See figure 3 at the bottom (see also figure 4 and 5 later). Let me take the moving train carriage as an example. When this train car is stationary, you have a coordinate system for locations and time. When the train car is in motion, the entire coordinate system with all the objects in it shrinks, including the train car itself. So length units and units of time also shrink. This is already included in the Lorentz transformation formulas that represent the new locations and times for simultaneity compared to standstill, but these values are expressed in the shrinking new units. Everything shrinks with the shrinkage factor 1 - (v² / c²), so the new γ = (1 / 1 - (v² / c²). If we calculate the length contraction, it corresponds to that shrinkage factor. Both the unit of length and the unit of time shrink by 1 - (v² / c²), so, in the example, the new units are 0.75 meters and 0.75 seconds. And our 1 second has now become 0.75 seconds and is therefore the new unit of time in motion, so if 1.333 new units of time have passed, only 1 slow second has passed, so time slows down with new units of time. The location and time for the photon in the moving train car are both 1.0 (expressed in s and c), but that is in the new units. The photon is in the old units at 1.0 x 0.75 = 0.75, i.e. equal for observer B outside the train car. But observer A just measures 1.0 because he has no knowledge of shrinkage. For a vertical ray of light, this is also the same at 0.5c and 1s. This follows exactly from the formula (1 - (v / c)).(1 + (v / c)), let a ray of light of 1c vertically reflect when stationary, so with the behavior of light rays, the shrinkage is already naturally included. You do have to shift the simultaneity vertically slightly for observer B, see later. So, the time delay factor is 1 - (v² / c²). Horizontally it is the same but a bit more difficult to see, due to the movement of the train carriage itself, vertically there is no extra movement.
• Having explained all the things above now, I am going to clarify a few more points for the sake of completeness. 1) First of all, the forumule 1 - (v² / c²), why doesn't it need to be compensated for shrinkage, because I don't think it contains any shrinking variables. If one creates a vertical ray of light in the train car in my example above on the far left, then one gets the infamous triangle from which Lorentz could simply calculate the time delay factor without having any idea what this meant, Einstein did. See Figure 1 at the very bottom. In a horizontal direction I reasoned my shrinkage factor, so observer A and B saw a photon at the same location. That must therefore be made correct vertically. All units in and around the train car shrink both time (duration) and length units. By the way: for observer A in the train car, the vertical and horizontal rays of light are simultaneous after 0.75 slow seconds, for observer B the vertical ray of light is simultaneous after 1 (fast) second, and the horizontal ray of light only after 1.5 (fast) seconds. I think I was possibly able to think of something (after a long time) how vertical shrinkage can also be achieved (at least the formulas are correct). (Oct. 2025) See below figure 5c. again explained. If one shrinks the infamous triangle in Figure 1 with the current time delay factor, 0.75 seconds still coincides with 0.5c and 1 fast second along the rails. This is repeated again with a smaller triangle at 0.5c, on half of the oblique side. Then one sees the red shrunken triangles. It is striking that they always start a little later than the origin, this is apparently a kind of delay to achieve simultaneity in the vertical direction (compensation for horizontal shrinkage). We know that there are differences between the direction of motion v and perpendicular to the direction of motion v, if we accept length contraction in the direction of motion v, we can make it correct with perpendicular to the direction of motion v without length contraction, both the same time delay factor. As I reason, it is correct with photons in the horizontal direction of motion v, so a greater length contraction, actually a shrinkage factor because the mathematical length contraction no longer occurs in the existing or own units. But then again it doesn't match perpendicular to the direction of motion v. That direction is actually also more vague, what effects does a direction perpendicular to the direction of motion have at a very high velocity in space. I would think of a slowdown in simultaneity. (Oct. 2025) See below figure 5c. again explained. So observer B only sees the vertical ray of light from (1 - √(1 - (v² / c²))) x (distance travelled by the railway carriage) second go up later at the speed of light than from 0 originally. Then we have a larger time delay factor and also a vertical shrinkage factor, that an object shrinks is also more difficult to observe than length contraction in 1 direction. Observer B sees the photon according to the black line that follows the delayed time in a vertical direction. The total length of this line is at 0.75 second, only 0.90c, while the simultaneity coincides with the 1 second in horizontal direction as it should. That's because of those extra delays, so the photon on the black line has traveled a smaller distance, but the local speed is still the speed of light. In nature, anything is possible without really understanding it. The unchanged Lorentz transformation formulas were : x' = γ . (x - v.t) and t' = γ . (t - (v.x/c²)) and vice versa x = γ . (x' + v.t') and t = γ . (t' + (v.x'/c²)). The modified Lorentz transformation formulas have been updated with the new γ = (1 / 1 - (v² / c²) : x' = γ . (x - v.t) and t' = γ . (t - (v.x/c²)) and vice versa x = x' + v.t' and t = t' + (v.x'/c²), the length contraction or shrinkage factor remain mathematically the same with the new γ, the mathematical length contraction only exists in these new units, so not in existing or own units. The formulas for the Lorentz transformation in our time and length units then become: leave γ out, so x' = (x - v.t) and t' = (t - (v.x/c²)) and vice versa (with γ) x = γ . (x' + v.t') en t = γ . (t' + (v.x'/c²)). So, this formula is in our time and length units, e.g. observer A in the moving train car (also shrunk by 1 - (v² / c²)) measures the time and length in shrinkage units of 1 - (v² / c²) of which he has no knowledge, and the number of units are the same as before the shrinkage, so 1 - (v² / c²) number of units less than observer B measures in his own units. So both time and length undergo a shrinkage by a factor of 1 - (v² / c²) in our units. The formula in the vertical direction for y is about the same for simultaneity (for x' = 0, y' = γ . y, t'_y = t' for which y = x - v.t etc. y' = y in our own units, because a photon must be seen at the same height by observers), so an object shrinks in both or all directions (atoms are closer together). Take, for example, a ruler in the moving train carriage, the entire ruler shrinks and so do the units, both by 1 - (v² / c²), so in our units it shrinks completely by 1 - (v² / c²). I still wonder how the Lorentz triangle came about with a time delay of 0.866. I am inclined to say (as I think) by chance, because you don't know everything afterwards (again, as I think). If you look at the existing transformation formula, you can clearly see with γ that there is a conversion taking place in shrinking units, for example x' = γ . (x - v.t) for 1 / γ. This is also the case with t'. The photon is at 0.75c in our units, but in the moving system for the observer at 0.866 new units if the units are also 0.866c, i.e. at 0.75c (0.866 x 0.866) in our units. But that 0.866 is considered as 0.866c as in that Lorentz triangle and with length contraction you see it at 0.75c. But because no length contraction is assumed vertically, the units are not shrunk there, and the length is actually 0.866c. Because I think the time delay formula 1 - (v² / c²) is, I end up with shrunken units of 1 - (v² / c²) and the outcome in the moving system is only 1 unit in this example and a larger length contraction which is the shrinkage factor, but in both directions. By shifting the simultaneity in the vertical direction slightly for an observer B, he still sees the known Lorentz triangle in this example, but it is shrunk with a oblique side of 0.866 and an adjacent side of 0.75. Anyway, I find my solution more logical, it doesn't seem logical to me that the appearance of something distorts in one direction, but practice will have to show it, for example with gravitational waves, is the shrinkage in both directions? It is also argued that length contraction (or shrinkage in my case) gives contradictions in the theory, but that is because they think that the theory of relativity only has to do with motions while I think with increasing energy. If B is in motion relative to A, the theory assumes that A is in motion relative to B, and even with the Big Bang, that's not the case. One of the two is really in motion relative to the other, there is only one where the energy increases the most and where time therefore passes more slowly. On the Earth this is always clear, everything that moves in relation to the Earth gets more energy. If you see the different units in length and time, you can start thinking, what is a unit at a clock in the moving system? Actually, it doesn't matter how they solve it there, what matters is that the speed of light is always measured in comparison, even if they have a random unit there and the distance traveled by light is a different number per unit, it remains the same speed of light when converted. Does a different time delay make a difference, so it doesn't matter which time delay, so whether it's 0.866 or 0.75 in the example? If you take 0.866 with shrinking units, something isn't right. In the stationary system, you measure that something is 1c long by means of a laser beam (is light) that measures 1c. In the moving system, you would first measure 0.866c with a laser beam because you have no knowledge of shrinking units, but what you measure then becomes smaller through communication. If you take 0.75 with shrinking units (which also follows from the new time delay formula), you simply measure 1c, so you measure the same thing through communication. So there is only 1 shrinking unit where you measure the same thing over and over again. But isn't time delay measured in experiments? In a light clock that I think is theoretical, one measures the number of clicks on 1 mirror of a reflecting photon between 2 mirrors. With my shrinkage of units this would not change (the whole structure shrinks, the atoms are closer together and the natural synchronization (a.o. energy dependent) shows less light), the number of clicks remains the same, so you do not measure the time delay (I think a shrinking mechanical clock does run slower). In practice, an atomic clock in an airplane does measure this, the clock runs slower. An atomic clock is set to our time and measures the light coming from a certain atom, I don't know exactly how this works. With time delay or energy increase, I think the visual energy of a new photon (in the universal time) should decrease, and according to Max Planck the frequency of the light wave belonging to that photon decreases. I don't know what effect this has on shrinking units because I don't know exactly how one measures in such an atomic clock. However, it is possible that the number of peaks and troughs of a light wave are counted, and there are fewer, because light may remain the same as it was created in the universal time. If one were to adopt those units WITHOUT shrinkage in the moving system, for example on another planet, by chance in their choice, then at 0.75 in those units they think the light would have traveled a path of 1.333 more, but that is still the speed of light in our system when converted. I think the following explanation for this example is the best provisional one to explain this short path of 0.90c. For vertical movements, it takes 0.1 seconds to compensate for the horizontal shrinkage (this goes in steps with the red triangles, some integral will come to 0.1 second I think). As a result, the black line is only 0.90c, with measurements for the speed of light one must take into account the loss of 0.1 second (in this case, in fact it is still 1c long but partially visible, the initial piece is not shown). As noted earlier, it doesn't matter who actually makes something move, the other person sees it with simultaneity as if he himself makes something move. So if observer B makes a photon move across the black line, he sees the photon after 1 second on the black cross in figure 1. Observer A sees this photon as follows. If observer A makes a photon move vertically, then simultaneity is achieved for both observers at 0.90c and 0.75c, due to the loss of 0.1 second, observer B will not see the starting piece. As noted earlier, time is the length of the path traveled of light, so that 0.90c string of light will always be seen by observer B as 0.90 seconds. This transformation has now become a possibility, variants will probably still be found. At the moment, the theory of relativity does not yet fit completely into quantum mechanics. The velocities must also be very high if all this is to be tested properly. Perhaps in the future this will be possible from the Moon by allowing lightweight robots to move through space at considerable velocities (close to the speed of light). 2) Observer A sees movements at observer B the same as if they were to take place in the train car due to the fact of the time delay (or longer duration) and shrinkage of time (duration) and length units, these observations are then purely visual, e.g. a moving measuring rod at observer B, if observer A grabs that measuring rod from the air, then it really shrinks. 3) The theory of relativity is based on the fact that the speed of light is always measured the same during movement. But if you assume that everyone in motion sees a photon spatially in the same location, you could also follow that time passes slower (or duration longer). 4) That everyone in motion measures the speed of light the same in a fast or slow second, only applies as long as everything remains in motion, standstill compared to the Big Bang is not possible. The first ray of light from the Big Bang belonged to a certain universal time (duration) but we do not know this. We do know these about our Earth and use them to record all events relatively. 5) If something really moves, time really slows down and real shrinking takes place, or with increased energy. A real movement is movement compared to the Big Bang. If a gravitational wave temporarily shrinks matter through temporarily increased energy (and temporarily slows down local time), that is also a real shrinking. Observers in motion see these shrinking's or time delays slightly differently, but that is purely visual, the numbers are the same as they would be with real movements, so what is observed actually moves. Therefore, those perceived energies are also purely visual, only with the real movements is the energy real. 6) So in my example the time runs slower in the train car, outside the train car it is 1 second and in the train car 0.75 second (with shrinkage, without 0.866 second)). So if your clock outside the train car indicates 1 second, the clock in the train car indicates 0.75 seconds. But this is different from simultaneity. In motions of objects C and D, each point of C is simultaneous with exactly one point in D, and all those points are different. On the objects C and D themselves, all points are simultaneous, in each point the clock runs the same (the rhythm of the clock). If you let light reflect between those points, then the time it takes is exactly the same as the time back. In motion, those times are no longer the same because the paths of light traveled are shorter or longer back and forth. 7) My reasoning about shrinkage does not go against length contraction because length contraction has never been demonstrated in practice (also difficult with those high velocities or increased energy, timedilation has been demonstrated)! Shrinkage has been demonstrated with gravitational waves due to temporarily increased energy. Of course you still have the Lorentz invariance, which may not be entirely consistent with the possible new shrinkage, but well that has to be thought about, that moving observers all see a different mass of a stationary object, is also questionable, well Lorentz invariant but what does it actually say?
• (October 2024) Is relativity only about motion or also about energy?
  As I think, of course. As a reminder, Higgs particles represent the mass of something, so a mass is made up of particles, and each particle has a number of Higgs particles in it, giving such a particle mass in the Higgs fields all around us. Mass is also energy according to Einstein.
  First, my example of the man walking on the train in the opposite direction to the direction of travel of the train. That man stands still in front of an observer along the rails. Because the train is moving and therefore the energy of the train has increased, that of that man has also increased because on top of that train, both a clock in the train and the watch of the man run slower compared to a stationary clock of the observer along the rails. The average energy per particle of the train and that man are the same, energy (e.g. diesel for a diesel train) seems to have been converted into more Higgs particles per particle. Then the man walks over the train and gets even more energy, his watch runs even slower than the clock in the train. Part of his internal energy (e.g. what he had just eaten) has been converted into a higher average energy per particle in his body, more Higgs particles per particle.
  For the stationary observer, the man on the train is stationary and, according to the theory of relativity, his time passes just as fast as for the stationary observer along the rails. And vice versa. Both see an imaginary clock in the other that runs exactly the same. The location of movements can therefore be reasoned with, e.g. after 1 hour both are still in the same place (a very long train), a beam of light flected behaves exactly as expected between two people or objects that are stationary in relation to each other. So relativity is only about motion, the stationary observer knows nothing about the energy or real time of that man. But both can calculate them if one knows the sequence of motions and basic data such as the mass or energy and time of both at rest.
  The second example. My example of the train car (at the very bottom) with a photon inside and a photon from the stationary observer along the rails. The observer sees both photons at the same height, but an observer in the train car also sees both photons at the same height. Every observer sees movements as if they originated in his own system. As a result, the observer along the rails sees time slow down in the train car, but vice versa, the observer in the train also sees time slow down along the tracks or the passing landscape (because the time for a real movement of an object in the train car also slows down). Both see an imaginary clock in the other that slows down, one can reason with that imaginary clock movements when something can be seen where. So relativity is only about motion, the stationary observer and observer in the train car know nothing about the real energy and time of each other. But both can calculate them if one knows the sequence of motions and basic data such as the mass or energy and time of both at rest. Both know that the train car is moving relative to the rails and can calculate the real energy and time with the basic data they know about each other. The time, a moving clock, in the train car is really slowing down, the average energy per particle has increased, and the average energy of the rails is less with the time of the stationary clock going faster. But purely for calculating each other's locations for moving objects, one's own clock that runs idiculously slower in the other person's is sufficient (unless it is a real moving clock, which actually runs slower).
  My personal conclusion: relativity is only about motion to reason out simultaneous locations relative to each other. But the real motions themselves have an effect on time and energy for those moving objects themselves, which is different from Newton's, which is again part of the total theory of relativity.
• (October 2024) Could the shrinking of matter at velocity / energy be possible in theory?
  As I think, of course. In the figure 6 below I have shown schematically how I see it.
  The starting point is that everyone sees the speed of light c the same in their own local time.
  In my opinion, light arises in space just like in the Big Bang, so just according to the corresponding universal time u, where the speed of light travels 300,000 km in the unit belonging to that u (as we on Earth have the unit 1 second), so for light there is only 1 opposition in space for the energy that belongs to the light particles of photons, according to Max Planck, the energy of a photon is e = h . f, so this opposition that is always the same for light, it is determined by a mix of its energy and frequency, this opposition is encapsulated in space (in the transparent particles with negative energy).
  For matter, the energy does increase in real motion and the opposition therefore increases, a clock really slows down. However, this is synchronized with light, which apparently passes more slowly but in a slower time so that the speed of light remains the same locally, but spatially light continues to travel the same path as at the Big Bang. Even when light arises in moving matter, light arises, as in the Big Bang with its universal time u. So experiencing slower local time is relativity, everyone and everything experiences its own local time relative to universal time u.
  The laws of nature must remain the same for everyone and everything in motion in relation of course, on Earth we know the local time 1 second but with real movement such as in a train carriage with high velocity this 1 second goes slower or takes longer (t' = (1 / γ) . t. The energy of that train car also increases to get to that high velocity, e = m . c². So if m is the mass of that train car at rest, the mass of that train car increases by γ . m, so that again e = γ . m . c² is. Some physicists then say that the mass m is a basic fact that does not change, but that only its energy increases. So I don't agree with that, the energy increases the mass m by γ. m, and thereby becomes the new mass m. On Earth we have this mass m determined just like the local time t, but this number arose from the Earth's history with other energy. The speed of light c, which is always constant, is a universal constant that is constant for everyone and everything anywhere in space. So just as the local time t is different for everyone and everything is in motion, so is the mass m, all the laws of nature that are based on this t and m remain in motion the same. So also in the case of feints, such as the rail moves from the train car, one can calculate the corresponding simultaneous locations with an imaginary clock, the other laws of nature also apply, so that with this feint one also sees a higher energy according to those laws of nature, but remember that it is a feint, the damage of an atomic bomb locally remains the same for all moving observers who believe that that energy is locally greater, so they are feints. Only in real movements are the numbers real, but a feint is also only seen, one is not part of it.
  If the matter shrinks in real motion, then the units of length shrink, so the unit of time automatically shrinks as well, because with a shrinking unit of length one sees less light passing by, so the unit of time shrinks the same (because the local speed of light remains the same). So when an atomic clock shrinks, it sees the light pass more slowly with shrinking unit of time, and then counts fewer peaks and troughs of those light waves (which remain the same spatially), and then indicates a slower time (if it would work like that, it would not be possible to find out exactly, the frequency of the light could also change). I think a shrinking mechanical clock also runs slower. Actually, the degree of opposition remains the same, only because of the shrinking one sees the local time exactly as I think, only then one sees all photons that have been created at the same time always at the same location spatially.
  So in some laws of physics we have a factor γ, even if it is not the same number c as at the speed of light, but the formula as γ . m remains the same. If one looks at such a law of nature at shrinkage, I also find a factor γ or 1 / γ difference (with the formulas I looked at with Lorentz invariance) depending on the units I choose (see above modified Lorentz transformation formulas).
  In any case, with shrinking it follows in our units from the equation x' ² - (c² . t' ²) = 0, also that x² - (c² . t²) = 0 and vice versa. This also applies to the shrinking units y' and z', also that x' ² + y' ² + z' ² - (c² . t' ²) = 0 and vice versa. Without y' and z', so there is always shrinkage in x', with the acceptance that there is a delay in the observed simultaneity of (1 - √(1 - (v² / c²))) second in perpendicular directions to the direction of motion, see above, there is also shrinkage at y' and z' (look at the Lorentz triangle below, with the old delay factor the oblique side was 1c and the adjacent side was 0.866c, so y' = y in our own units for a ray of light, with the new delay factor the oblique side is still 1c, but the adjacent side is 0.75c, with a delay in the simultaneity the oblique becomes smaller). For the reader, the x, y and z coordinates in these formulas are the coordinates for light rays from the origin, in a certain point e.g. by energy increase or decrease the changed time is determined by the changed distance that a light ray travels to that point. But for coordinates for all motions (in our example within the train car and along the rails) the "distance Δs" between 2 events (in our example 2 events inside the train car and as observed simultaneously along the rails) is constant either invariant or in formula form Δs ² = Δx ² + Δy ² + Δz ² - (c² . Δt ²) = Δx' ² + Δy' ² + Δz' ² - (c² . Δt' ²). (May 2025) Unfortunately, this applies in the old situation with the unchanged γ. With the new γ, that "distance" is no longer constant, but it is invariant according to a fixed formula so Δs ² = γ . Δs' ² (for the time being only for the shrinking x, rest to be proven later, such as for y and z, but it is logical that shrinkage goes hand in hand with a greater time delay and a proportional factor comes out of it, shrinkage from all sides occurs due to an increase in energy, so it applies then too Δs ² = γ . Δs' ², see figure 7b, without shrinking was y = y' en z = z', I think now that y' and z' must be corrected with y' = √(1 / γ) . y and z' = √(1 / γ) . z, and then it applies again Δs ² = Δx ² + Δy ² + Δz ² - (c² . Δt ²) = γ . (Δx' ² + Δy' ² + Δz' ² - (c² . Δt' ²))), so it seems as if that "distance" is also shrinking. (July 2025) I have demonstrated with my own examples and calculations that all of this is correct. With the old γ, events for a moving observer do not coincide geometrically (the locations), yet Δs ² = Δs' ² (even though there is length contraction). With the new γ, events coincide geometrically (the locations), there is no longer length contraction but there is shrinkage, and Δs ² = γ . Δs' ². (Aug. 2025) Final conclusion. See also figure 5 at the bottom. It is now actually the old theory with the old γ added with shrinkage, which is a factor of the old length contraction. So the new γ is a square of the old γ, the shrinkage factor is √(1 / γ) and the time delay factor is 1 / γ. So if you accept a delay in synchronization of time in directions other than the direction of motion (x), such as y, z, etc., then the shrinkage factor is equal in all directions as well as the time delay factor (but the shrinkage factor no longer has the same value as the smaller time delay factor). The old length contraction, which no longer occurs, has now been replaced by the shrinkage factor (the same value). And as I have explained before, as I believe, time is universal. So if time goes slower, matter shrinks due to more opposition, but light does not shrink; one simply sees less light passing relative to it. With the old γ, there was no shrinking, but less light was observed in the moving train car, so time and length were diminished in value. With the new γ, a shrinkage factor has been added in units, where the reduced value consists of the old value (which was already less) multiplied by the shrinkage factor. So it seems as if the entire value has shrunk by 1 / γ but the shrinkage factor is only √(1 / γ). For the time being (until contraction in all directions is a fact), I would use the existing mathematics and in the frame that is really moving or appears to be moving to the observer, compensate the outcomes expressed in time and location in the old units for the new shrunk units, thus multiplying those outcomes by the shrinkage factor 1 / γ where γ is the γ from the existing mathematics. But for now, this is all just a thought, and it is possible that the theory of relativity is not yet complete. At the very bottom in figures 4, 4a, 5, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d and 5e, it may become clearer. (Sept. 2025) Under figure 5a you will find the complete transformation formulas so that both vectors are by definition equal again in the different frames, but Δs ² is no longer. I have also been able to improve the formulas now (see 5a, and as I see it of course) so that if something does not really move, its local time and energy also do not change. So now it is high time to close this topic for myself and continue reading in GR and QM. I have to wait for Gauss in the study of general relativity to be able to interpret this all better. Depending on what with gravitational waves are found in the perpendicular directions, there may be other combinations, but the point is that matter shrinks with energy increases (energy density)), such as in black holes, etc.
• (October 2024) In the figure 7 and 7a below I have indicated that a photon (particle of light) always travels the same path spatially, I have applied the contraction here with the modified Lorentz formulas (see above).
  So with my well-known example of the moving train car (to the right) you can see that spatially the photon has traveled 1.5c spatially in both cases, so along the rails and in the train car, although to an observer in the train car this seems to be only 0.75c.
  (Aug. 2025 corrected)) If you look at this the other way from the train carriage, the simultaneous moments are different again, there also seems to be an imaginary clock that moves with the rails in the other direction (to the left), that time also goes slower than in the train car, there also seems to be imaginary shrinkage. Then you see that the photon in the train carriage has traveled 0.75c in distance (to the right), and the photon along the rails seems to have traveled a total of 1.125c (to the right), but that is just a false image in this other direction, because the rails have now traveled 0.375c in distance and that photon has not been there at all, so spatially speaking, that photon has also traveled 1.125 - 0.375 = 0.75c.
  You can ask yourself if something really moves from the train at the same velocity as the passing rails from the train, how are the calculations? Exactly the same, the imaginary clock has then become a real clock. The length of a passing ray of light (or time) is always seen shorter (i.e. time is slower) with real or apparent movement. Only with real movement is there a real clock that runs slower.
• (November 2024) How would a photon (particle of light) perceive the world?
  In my opinion, a photon does not "see" our world as I have written before (see also my archive), because its local time is 0, but is in its own world at the same time. I hope to make this clear in the following way.
  If you see our world in a coordinate system of x,y,z you can consider there in the fourth dimension a fixed value w for the fourth coordinate, so in our world the coordinates with the fourth dimension are x,y,z,w. If you were to believe in other worlds, this w coordinate would always be different.
  Suppose that the photon is at the same time in such a different world with a different fixed coordinate w1, then that photon does not "see" anything of our world with coordinate w. We do see that photon, but the photon itself is also in another world, but it "sees" the same coordinates x,y,z of our world and can blindly determine its way into our world from its own linked world.
  Who knows, this may also be the case for all other particles, such as electrons. Because the rules there are clearly different from those in our world, no earthly people can live in those special worlds.
  Now the entanglement between particles is also easier to imagine. Take, for example, 2 photons that are entangled with each other in our world. They can communicate with each other in their world with coordinate w1, all the consequences of that are mirrored in our world, for us this seems to be wonderful, because we cannot see this but only observe it.
• (February 2025) Below in figure 7b I have indicated a vertical ray of light from a horizontally moving object such as the moving train carriage in the old way without shrinking and with shrinking as I think.
  Without shrinking, you see exactly the concept of duration in the picture with simultaneity.
  On the oblique side of the triangle, the fast time 1s outside the moving train carriage (rails) and on the adjacent side the slower time 0.866s in the moving train carriage. The duration is the same for both, the short duration of the fast 1s is equal to the short duration of a part, 0.866s of the slower 1s which has a longer duration.
  Also have a separate photon run along the oblique side in the time from outside the train carriage (rails), this photon goes hand in hand with the photon of the vertical ray of light in the moving train carriage.
  Horizontally in figure 7, the total duration is also the same because the photons travel the same path spatially so relatively in the same universal time, without shrinking that would not be the case and therefore not correct as I think.
  If you look at the vertical ray of light with shrinking, it should be 0.75c long according to the new time delay factor (0.75).
  This is only possible if the simultaneity outside the train carriage (rails) shifts vertically a bit than the calculated locations or a separate formula for vertical simultaneity, which starts a little later than horizontally .. (Oct. 2025) See below figure 5c. again explained.
• (Aug. 2025 added) I now better understand that in the case of a deceptive movement, as in my example of the rails and the train car, from the perspective of the train car, one also observes the energy of the rails as greater and sees time slowing down according to calculations; however, I wouldn't know what effect this greater energy should produce, possibly just a visual effect.
  If an atomic bomb explodes along the rails, the damage caused by the released energy will not be greater from a stationary or moving train car. However, any potential visual effect with energy can indeed be seen with light and is well-known.
  The greater the velocity of the train car, the lower the energy of a photon in that train car is observed (according to the formula for the relativistic energy of a photon), and the lower the frequency of the observed light, or the Doppler effect (according to Max Planck, the energy of a photon e = h . f). With that amount of energy, there will thus be a lower frequency; the less a photon vibrates up and down, the less energy that photon will have.
  We observe less light during motion or a slower time, so compared to standing still we see a lower frequency of that light simultaneously and thus a lower energy for those photons, which is the Doppler effect. But if you think that the energy of a photon is always the same as when it is created, for example in electromagnetism, you now see a visual effect of energy.

Figure 6 (time delay seen spatially, with shrinking units and objects)

(Aug. 2025, is being replaced) Figure 7 (two-way time delay, with shrinking units and objects)

(Aug. 2025, is being replaced) Figure 7a (two-way time delay diagram, with shrinking units and objects)

Figure 7b (time delay vertically, without / with shrinking units and objects, (May 2025 corrected) (Sept. 2025, read for the right-hand figure under figure 5c for the correct explanation)

3.

Another thought about our existence

i) All the sources already mentioned consulted and supplemented with some thoughts of my own

Actually, a new thought is the real reason that I have brought both websites to life, to ventilate this thought among interested parties, you can not prove everything but it can give inspirations for new thoughts.

As a boy I used to walk a lot on the heath, thought a lot about everything (must have been stored in the genes, because my father did that too, who predicted all the environmental problem in the 70s), and often thought everything is really around me or do we think that.

One thing is clear, we know nothing or almost little, we have no idea of our own existence. And the things that we do know, that has taken 6 million years, so that has not gone fast and the result is not great when we see how we interact with each other in the world today, and that after 6 million years. An incredibly long time.

But yes, whether everything is real or not, actually it doesn't matter, it's about how we experience this, and that's the same in both cases.

Yet in the last 10 years it has become clear to me that energy is an elusive thing, actually fictitious, our entire existence stands or falls with energy, if you take that energy away in 1 time, then our entire existence has disappeared in 1 flash.

So energy is, as it were, a mathematical variable that makes our entire existence possible viewed in a mathematical model.

In a mathematical model, anything is possible as long as it is mathematically correct, so concepts such as timelessness, particles, light waves, forces, big bang, curved space, fourth dimension, parallel worlds / spaces etc. There's nothing really to understand, it's just pure math. When do you think you understand something, if it looks like something you already know, but in fact you don't really understand that also.

That gives me the idea that this mathematical model is in fact the Big Bang, it originated out of nowhere, and it contains mathematical submodels in the form of particles, the positive energy, and transparent particles, the negative energy, the first represented as matter and light, and the second as space. This has been the foundation from which everything has evolved. Using probability functions, you could explain it as a coincidence, but that is absolutely not 100% certain.

We humans also originated in this, as mathematical sub-models from this evolutionary process. Whether this is driven from the outside is a debate among us.

But the difference between real and not real, by which I mean, that in our three-dimensional submodel that we experience, something has arisen in every location, a tree, plant, stone, rest of dinosaur, light wave, or just space etc. but purely mathematically, by the laws of nature such as seeing, forces etc. that are also purely mathematical, we perceive those things, but in fact they do not exist as we think about everything around us, for example, we see a stone floating in the universe, but only exists mathematically. And what is, for example, the hardness of matter? Due to the mathematical composition of the mathematical particle models and possibly additional mathematics, it is not transparent and therefore feels hard, so also when we are on earth etc. Physics is pure mathematics, and only with mathematics do we try to explain everything. So physics is just the search for mathematics. E.g. with the mathematics found, we have discovered waves and we have TV, wireless communication etc. Perhaps this makes it even clearer: if all observers are no longer there, i.e. all living beings, then everything around us no longer exists, because there are no more observers!

In this way, the Big Bang can also be imagined more logically, it is not something like large amounts of ready-made material (or in gaseous form) that has come out of nowhere. With this last representation it must have existed forever, e.g. recycled from a black hole, but that reasoning is too simple and much more illogical (I think), everything must have a certain reason.

Some physicists think that the universe can be a hologram, which is also in line with the idea of ​​a mathematical model. Artificial intelligence or AI or our brain by means of neural networks (see section 3a) can also be mathematical submodels. Also that consciousness continues to exist after death (see section 3b), could be explained as a mathematical submodel separated from the body. For example, the fourth dimension (see section 3c) can also simply be a mathematical submodel. But all this is of course very complex mathematics, the mathematics that we master is only a very small modest part of it.

Of course, the question arises as to how life can arise from mathematics alone. The mathematics we use in textbooks are parts of the whole, e.g. lines, circles and other geometric figures that can intersect, algebra to calculate e.g. intersections etc. But the Big Bang also set mathematics in motion using the mysterious parameter energy. Particles are mathematical submodels, light is also a mathematical submodel with parameters that determine that it can only represent mathematical light, combinations of particles determine whether this light can travel right through those particles or whether it is reflected. You could say but this is physics, I would say it is mathematics in motion using the mysterious parameter energy that imposes extra restrictions on that mathematics, so a level higher, but it remains mathematics. Whether you consider those combinations of energies as matter or as pure mathematics, it makes no difference to that mathematics, we are a part of it in the form of a sub-model. And because life has already originated as well as neural networks etc., this is possible in our mathematical model. For now, these are all starting thoughts of course ..

So yes, I think there must be something because it's so incredibly clever, but of course you don't know what that should be, and the meaning of it. Unfortunately, after 6 million years, this system has only produced a kind of lunatics with blind followers, and it will continue to do so for the time being, although every century something advances, but excruciatingly slowly.

For me, death will be exciting, I am not afraid of it (painless please), what is the next phase of this great mystery (hopefully backwardness will be a thing of the past there, remark because of my other topic power of veto)?

3a.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) (added in March 2024)

i) Sources consulted are the book "Fundamentals of Neural Networks (Architectures, Algorithms, and Applications)" by L.F., Wiki miscellaneous information, some scientific reports, and supplemented with some thoughts of my own

First of all, I will briefly explain in my own words how people think that a biological (human / animal) neuron (or nerve cell) works and with that knowledge the idea of artificial neural networks (AI) originated. Everything is easy to find on the internet for more details.

First, a little introduction. Every human cell contains DNA, and you have different types of cells, a biological neuron is a nerve cell and therefore also contains DNA, there are as many biological neurons as glial cells and the latter take care of the biological neurons, e.g. keep everything clean, deliver food etc. DNA builds the body so also the brain, DNA is the same for all people but 11 parts together are unique per person, hence, DNA is our fingerprint. DNA is duplicated in cells and you could say that DNA is also a kind of memory for evolution (e.g. the hereditary traits), but more to regulate all the little things in our body that together build our large body. The brain is used to store our thoughts but also to regulate the bigger things in our body such as controlling our body parts, think of walking for example, but walking must also be learned. It is thought that Einstein had multiple glial cells per biological neuron and that is why his brain functioned so well.

A human being has 86 billion biological neurons in his brain. A biological neuron receives nerve impulses (electric, but chemically generated) from other biological neurons as input and, with the right input, gives off 1 nerve impulse as output to other biological neurons or as an end station a part of your body via the nerve pathways. In adulthood, an average biological neuron can have about 7,500 connections with other biological neurons, if one is young, as many as 15,000 connections, but over the years less important things take on less detail, so fewer connections are needed. So biological neuron networks are constantly changing, e.g. connections are created but can also disappear, so what we like to see in Alien movies actually happens in our own brain. Biological neurons also make up memory. So the memory is not something special, so a biological neuron transmits nerve impulses and is also the memory. One of the many inputs of a biological neuron can come from another biological neuron or from a body part, as can the one output of a biological neuron. So biological neurons can be used to think, to store thoughts, to learn and store what has been learned, to store events or to control a body part, think for example of a memory that makes you feel good and evokes images, so what processes all that causes in your body controlled by biological neurons.

So an average biological neuron can have about 7,500 connections with other biological neurons. These connections are called synapses and have the property of strengthening or weakening incoming nerve impulses, if a minimal total net nerve impuls comes through from those connections (>= 1) a nerve impulse is released by the biological neuron, otherwise nothing happens. These synapses make up the memory. An unused biological neuron cannot fire (give off a nerve impulse) because that neuron has not yet been incorporated into a network, during events such as thoughts, experiences, learning, etc., networks of neurons are created.

You can represent these nerve impulses as 0 and 1, whether or not a signal of a certain strength, they only acquire meaning in connection with the parts of the brain that exchange information with those nerve impulses (coding / decoding). In this way, a biological neuron can receive a combination of 0 and 1 (e.g. 0100111010 via 10 connections) so that those synapses are set in such a way that learning or event that a net nerve impuls is given off, or not. So in this way, those synapses act like memory. Therefore, those synapses have plastic properties, so after some time that plasticity disappears. If we have stored something in our memory in this way, then a permanent network of neurons has been created, when the first neurons are later stimulated again with the right nerve impulses, then what we have learned or the memory of an event is retrieved.

It might also be enlightening to give a small and simple example of how a biological neuron works. This gives a better insight into the whole. Suppose that you use two connections (input) for a biological neuron, and that biological neuron only has to emit a nerve impulse (output) if a nerve impulse also enters through those two connections (from other neurons). This is technically a so-called AND gate in technical circuits. A nerve impulse represents a 1, otherwise a 0 (no nerve impulse is issued). So the biological neuron has to give off a nerve impulse only for 1 and 1, but NOT for 1 and 0, 0 and 1, 0 and 0. Then the following mathematical equation will suffice : if ((s₁ . i₁) + (s₂ . i₂)) >= 1, than emit a nerve impulse, otherwise not. Here i₁ and i₂ are the values 0 or 1 for the two connections (input), s₁ and s₂ are the set values 0.5 for the biological synapses (which strengthen / weaken a nerve impulse), the mathematical equation can then be written as (0.5 . i₁ + 0.5 . i₂) >= 1. Now check all the values for i₁ and i₂, and it turns out that only when both are 1, the biological neuron emits a nerve impulse. The two biological synapses with set values 0.5 now act as memory for the four combinations of 0 and 1 (and results, output). A technical OR gate with the same combinations may NOT emit a nerve impulse for the combination 0 and 0. The mathematical equation can then be written as (i₁ + i₂) >= 1. The biological synapses then have set values 1.

And as with everything, people have been working on subjects for 100 years. Artificial neural networks have been around for at least 100 years, at first simple and now more complex. It requires a lot of math and often this ends in limitations, but in our real brains it all runs flawlessly. But artificial neural networks are pure mathematics (by connecting artificial neurons and to calculate the values for artificial synapses) and are simply recorded in programmed code, just like other programs in computers. They are therefore programming techniques that can program problems that would otherwise be much more complex or even impossible, such as license plate recognition or facial recognition. And it also works if there is a certain amount of contamination in the data delivery, e.g. a camera with a dirty lens or a license plate with mud (or damaged characters). This fault tolerance also works in our biological neural networks.

According to a book read about artificial neural networks (AI) until 1995, the following artificial neural networks have already been developed (often consisting of several layers of artificial neurons):

• recognizing patterns (compare with how the brain recognizes numbers, letters, handwriting, etc.)
• finding treatments / medicines for diseases (i.e. the network searches for a disease based on the symptoms entered)
• producing speech (compare with the brain how words should be pronounced in a given context, new words and pronunciation can be read by the network)
• recognizing speech (compare to how the brain can recognize speech and record it on paper)
• assessing requested mortgages (using data provided to the network, making an assessment of whether a mortgage can be granted in connection with risk analyses)

In the last 30 years all this will have improved a lot and of course new networks will have been designed, but I don't know, AI is personally not my area of interest now that I know more about it, and see this more as a topic / technique for the next generation.

As with other developments, a human being can misuse anything. That's how we developed and used the atomic bomb, that's how armies will be developed with robot soldiers (simply machines), we are who we are. Fortunately, we only live for a short time, so you never have to experience that madness for long. No matter how long we are in this world, we will never turn it into a paradise with our finds. But I don't believe that a human being can ever completely simulate the brain, they are really too complex for that and we can never completely unravel them. We are and remain mysterious beings (but with a big ego) in a mysterious world / space.

But this topic shows again that everything is mathematics. If everything "really" exists, then there is a lot of coincidence that our very complicated brains came into being this way (actually impossible, but you can also say that about the structure of our space and matter)!

Some more collected knowledge and some summary thoughts of my own for myself and others:

• In 1949 it was discovered in animals that if 2 connected biological neurons fire at the same time, so a biological neuron (presynaptic neuron) that is the input of another biological neuron (postsynaptic neuron) that also fires at the same time, that thickens the synapse of that connection (so incoming nerve impulse is strengthened), since then, nothing has been discovered I thought. But later it turned out that time was also important. If the presynaptic neuron fires just in front of the postsynaptic neuron, the connection is strengthened, meaning that the postsynaptic neuron can now be more easily activated by presynaptic stimulation. However, if the presynaptic neuron fires just after the postsynaptic neuron, the connection is weakened, which means the postsynaptic neuron is more difficult to activate. If the two neurons actually fire simultaneously, the strength of their connection does not change. Found another interesting document that reflects everything about the current knowledge of biological synapses, that remains a black box for the time being ("https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8186004/#bib9"). However, I found this sentence interesting: This observation suggests that the postsynaptic neuron "instructs" the short-term plasticity of the presynaptic neuron. Now I'm going to better understand artificial neural networks. Perhaps the first artificial neural networks long ago assumed certain workings of the biological neurons, but that this was also observed later, although the how is still a black box. So that's my confirmation that artificial neural networks are a representation of our brains, but the how we set ourselves is therefore simpler.
• So it follows from the above that a biological neuron can fire when it transmits a 0, but because it fires later than the receiving biological neuron, this does not contribute and can be considered a 0. So you would think that a biological neuron would always fire, but the timing would dictate whether it should be a 0 or 1. But it could also be that if it represents a 0, the biological neuron may be firing too late or not. Also, if they fire simultaneously, it could be either a 0 or 1, the synapses are already set up for the combinations and just let a certain valid combination through.
• At first I thought a possibility would be that a biological neuron always fires, and also remembers the net nerve impuls in an unknown way and the next time only fires when the same net nerve impuls is reached, so only allows 1 combination, but that thought gets stuck in a neural network. It is therefore inevitable that multiple combinations cause a biological neuron to fire, and thus more combinations can be remembered in the many synapses. So the mystery remains how a biological neuron knows its output, i.e. what net nerve impuls should be generated through its many synapses. And if the output of a biological neuron is connected to the input of multiple biological neurons, it needs to know the output of each connected biological neuron. In the case of artificial neural networks, we have this prior knowledge and we can achieve it through mathematics (but not always). So a lot of calculations have to be done in the brain to realize this through mathematics, but our body does everything through substances here and there and doesn't really contain a scientific calculator.
• A synapse cleft is an open space separated between both biological neurons. In order to contribute to the net nerve impulse, so-called neurotransmitters (molecules) are transferred to the other side in the cleft of each synapse, so from the presynaptic biological neuron to the postsynaptic biological neuron, the postsynaptic biological neuron has so-called receptors that receive the neurotransmitters and in this way a net nerve impulse can be built up through the many synapses. Now I have also read in a research report that the postsynaptic biological neuron can regulate this number of receptors, maybe (but I don't know for sure) to weaken or strengthen a net nerve impulse e.g. it is clear that it should be a 1 as output but that due to circumstances the nerve impulse is just too weak to fire, or e.g. that the nerve impulse becomes too strong.
• Also read somewhere in a research report, that the axon (output) of a biological neuron can sometimes be a meter long if it has to be connected to a body part somewhere. Certain molecules in the body take the axon in tow and find their way (left, right, straight ahead, etc.) to the body part, e.g. a muscle. You would then start to think that everything in the body has an identification and that even neurons have an identification. Which brings me to a thought of how the output could be known in advance in the synapses (i.e. is just a thought that doesn't have to be true at all), for a certain combination of 0 and 1 that goes to different biological neurons at the same time but with a different output. Suppose you have a combination of 0 and 1 and in addition a second combination of the output of 0 and 1 for different biological neurons where the sequence indicates neuron 1, neuron 2 etc. If you were to include the second combination in every 0 and 1 of the first combination, it could be encoded in the nerve impulse, which is a normal signal with an amplitude associated with any 0 or 1 of the first combination (0 could possibly belong to a weak nerve impulse). Then you can have the values (or increase value) calculated by the synapses themselves for each connected biological neuron because the output (0 or 1) of all connected neurons is processed in that nerve impulse but needs to be decoded. This is also the case for the next layer of biological neurons, so the output must be known in advance, or supplemented, e.g. if it goes live immediately while thinking. I wonder if a biological neuron in the middle of a biological neural network can be approached separately from the outside for an update of the synapses, or if only a biological neuron can be stimulated by other connected biological neurons. If the latter is true, the whole pattern of combinations will have to be determined in advance in the brain before it can be stored in a network of biological neurons, first those combinations will be carried out in disconnected neurons (I think) so that the synapses can adjust themselves correctly with all the data that is provided in the combinations. In this way, layer by layer is connected to each other. So this was a thought, but it shows how it could be done.
• So I would think that there is a thought first, and that it is only stored later, so that the brain can calculate what the values of the synapses should be when recording and possibly record the thought by working from back to front. But because this same problem occurs when assembling the unstored thought via biological neurons, I would think that our black box must be the consciousness that could be outside the brain, so an AI machine can never get a consciousness, it remains a machine. And both animals and humans can have consciousness outside of the brain. Anyway, that's all there is to think of for the time being. It's like the Big Bang, the beginning is incomprehensible. I can now understand that there is a part of scientists who argue that consciousness lies outside the brain where e.g. our thoughts also originate and are stored, possibly only the brain serves to connect our thoughts (also stored in the brain) to the body just like DNA is connected to our body, I am curious about my next topic 3b later.
• AI is therefore created by humans and is therefore simply a tool to get certain things done automatically that is not possible with the usual programming methods. It can also be used to make a robot function, so a kind of handy machine, but it will absolutely not be a human being with a consciousness ever. We like to exaggerate, have been in the world for 6 million years and get a bigger and bigger ego when we know a little more. I personally didn't believe in the self-driving car in busy city traffic either (see old text in my archive) and 10 years are always added for development. A person's complex brain can oversee more to prevent accidents, a few sensors can't compete with that. I see AI more for replacing repetitive boring work, the rest is mostly science fiction (for now).
• My personal conclusion: If you do math to set the biological synapses for various combinations of 0 and 1 associated with a given event, you will soon find out that every problem has its own solutions mathematically (just like artificial neural networks). But I am personally convinced that it should work more simply in the brain (which is something that came about naturally) than in artificial neural networks. We got the idea of artificial neural networks from the brain and developed it in our own way with a lot of math. I've been working for a while on the problem for a so-called XOR gate that can only be solved in artificial neural networks via a so-called Mandaline network, which includes multiple artificial neurons. I have the idea (true or false) that in 1 biological neuron every group of combinations can be stored and that there are only nerve impulses that represent a 1 (so always the same signal), and no nerve impulse represents a 0, and negative values do not occur. I think that a value of 1 should always be added to a combination, if a combination cannot be reconciled in the group. So there must always be an extra biological synapse for this purpose (if it receives a 0 then it does not contribute to the total net nerve impulse, with a 1 the total net nerve impulse of at least 1 is achieved). In the examples above with AND or OR gate, no 1 needs to be added, no additional biological synapse needs to be set. But an XOR gate has a tricky combination 1 and 1 that has to become 0. The combinations for an XOR gate are: 1 and 1, 0 and 0, should become 0, 1 and 0, 0 and 1, should become 1. This can be solved by giving an extra biological synapse a 1 for the combinations 1 and 0, 0 and 1. The mathematical equation is then: (0.4 . i₁ + 0.4 . i₂ + 0.6 . i₃) >= 1. All other combinations (except 1) do not give a net value of 1, only the combinations 1 and 0, 0 and 1 together with the extra 1, give a net value of 1, there is usually a margin of error, here it is the combination 1 and 1 together with the extra 1. This is not a real electronic circuit, but a simulation in the brain.
  I'm not going to think about it anymore and move on to other topics. People have been trying to solve this for 100 years and no one has come up with it yet, so it must be complicated. What a coincidence in nature ..
• Scientists are already able to make a series of brain cells receptive with certain chemicals, just as the brain does, for an initial event that will take place and then be stored in those brain cells. If those brain cells are stimulated again later with the right nerve impulses, that event or the memory of that event happens again.

3b.

Life or consciousness after death (added in July 2024)

i) Sources consulted are the book "Consciousness Beyond Life (The Science of the Near-Death Experience)" by P.v.L., Wiki miscellaneous information, some scientific reports, and supplemented with some own thoughts

Interesting book to read about the NDE, the author has also delved a lot into other sciences such as quantum mechanics to try to find explanations.

I myself have also experienced something special (only time in my life), not an NDE, but also something I will never forget. If you read in my archive you will see a comment made about an English scientist shortly after his death, where it gnawed at me, should I leave that comment out or not, I left it anyway. After about 1 week during a deep sleep I heard a loud doorbell (ding dong) in my brain that woke me up, in front of me I saw a large sharp image of that scientist looking at me, and then that image slowly faded away until it disappeared again. Something like that can come from the subconscious, I thought, from a kind of guilt, but if a scientist could make contact in some way, then this scientist had the right papers, because he was very much concerned with coexisting (parallel) worlds / spaces.
In retrospect, this may most resemble a hypnagogic hallucination in psychology if it has to have a name. For myself, I can explain this if I delve into topics too deeply and for a long time. As a self-employed person, I organize my daily schedule myself. I was able to experience this again 5.5 years later in the middle of the night with an apparition along my bed of an unknown person with non-Western clothing, a lifelike 3D image with details in the clothing. You are intensely shocked, but afterwards I would like to experience it again to be able to investigate the moment better, but it probably won't happen again. So finally experienced something that the brain is capable of, and is not commonplace, although I also understand that there are plenty of people with negative experiences that I hope those negative experiences will disappear. I can now understand very well what an NDE experience can be, lifelike and you can have the wish not to want to return because of an overwhelmingly wonderful feeling.

In my own archive I have also spent a lot of time working on an invisible space that I eventually called the fourth dimension, see topic 3c. Because I connect the timeless with light, within a (moving) light wave or electromagnetic wave time is 0 or timeless according to my thoughts, consciousness could well be in the fourth dimension (where in infinite parts there need be no time and no space as we know it, also, a third dimension with space and time could overlap at the same time with a third dimension without space and time, so the visible and invisible space are intertwined) and communicate with the brain via electromagnetic waves (light), a kind of entanglement like between two light particles (it is an incipient discovery, see topic 3c), but now between neurons and directly connected to the fourth dimension. In this way, neurons could also be controlled from the fourth dimension or our consciousness. The body is needed to visualize thoughts and to actually feel feelings. After this, I'm going to study quantum mechanics in detail and I'm curious to see if I can develop my own ideas better.

I'm always surprised that an average scientist doesn't believe in anything (I'm not talking about the author of the book). A scientist should see how terribly peculiar the world is, the scientist searches further and further with a high enthusiasm but only does this to spend his time pleasantly, after that dead is dead forever. Einstein was not like that, he did not literally believe in a person like God, but he did feel the mystique of existence as a question mark for most of us. Also we must not forget, we do have brains, but they may be limited so that we can only reach a limited level with our thoughts, we are not above nature but are a part of it, nature allows us to think to a certain level.

As a senior, you have more time to think about everything more deeply. Normally you are busy with so many things as a kind of automaton / robot, and in the meantime the short life goes by very quickly. If I really thought that life has no purpose at all, I wouldn't want to live a minute longer, everything would have 0% meaning no matter what you do. I can't imagine that everything around us just came into existence out of nothing and of itself and is so intelligently put together. I can understand that my level of thinking is limited and therefore cannot understand it, I am part of nature but not above it, so it is not the other way around. Therefore, it is just a matter of waiting to see what will literally happen after death. Of course, I also have constant doubts, because no matter how intelligent everything is, I don't find that in my fellow human beings, generation after generation. Man remains the same century after century (for 6 million years) and is constantly waging war and still does not see the absurdity of his actions. Is unable to break that pattern, is selfish and greedy, is cowardly, aggressive, untrustworthy and uncaring, is easy to manipulate, never has enough and does not see the limits of nature, is unable to create a better world for each other, is hypocritical and sees only false injustices. Why should such a being be rewarded, is this life perhaps a learning experience for a sequel, but why? For the time being, I'm just assuming that I don't have the level to understand it and just wait and see and am glad that it's finite in this world, so that this constant irritation comes to an end ..

3c.

The fourth dimension (added in July 2024)

i) Sources consulted are the book "Dance of the Photons (Einstein, Entanglement and Quantum Teleportation)" by A.Z., Wiki miscellaneous information, some scientific reports, and supplemented with some thoughts of my own

Two similar particles (e.g. two particles of light, called photons, or two electrons, etc.) can be in contact with each other at a theoretical infinite distance from each other (e.g. a particle on Earth and a particle on Mars) and still react immediately to each other, e.g. if a property of one particle is changed (e.g. the spin of an electron i.e. the direction of rotation), the same property is also immediately changed in the other particle (so in this example it also gets the same direction of rotation, or in some experiments an opposite direction of rotation). A property of a light particle (photon) is, for example, the polarization of the light wave belonging to the light particle (e.g. think to light filters where certain light rays with a certain polarization can be filtered out, such as in sunglasses).

But this can only take place when those two particles are entangled with each other. When two particles are entangled with each other, they are in a state that they have not yet taken on a value for a property, so no property has a value, e.g. the spin of an electron has no direction yet. Only when a property takes on a value by some natural cause, or e.g. a property is measured by measuring equipment, it is then forced to take on a value, will that value of that property of the particle also be taken on in the case of the entangled particle. As soon as a particle has taken on a property in that entangled state (probably all properties have taken on a value by then), the entanglement also comes to an end. Quite logical, because the purpose of the entanglement will be to make sure that both particles have the same properties regardless of their distance.

How do you get these particles into an entangled state? For example, in the case of light particles (photons), the easiest way to do this is to split a light particle in a special crystal, creating two entangled particles. E.g. in the case of electrons, the temperature must first be lowered to around absolute zero (approximately around -273 degrees Celsius or approximately around 0 degrees Kelvin), collisions by means of entangled light particles (photons) with those electrons, create an entangled connection between those electrons independent of their distance.

This idea came theoretically from Einstein as a paradox, because he did not believe in quantum mechanics in principle. If this entangled connection could be possible, there had to be hidden parameters (variables) to explain the passing of the properties to both particles independently of their distance. I fully agree with this (according to my thoughts), there must always be an explanation, even if one is not yet able to find such an explanation, so there are always hidden parameters (variables) that one does not yet know in this case. I will come back to the proof (?) of 30 years later that these cannot exist (the so-called violation of Bell's inequality).

If you read in my archive, I've already been working on this subject. Entanglement of particles can occur when they are close to each other, but usually by means of light particles (photons) if the distances are larger or theoretically infinite. My idea is that entangled light particles create a path in which time is 0 or timeless. Because light has the greatest possible speed for us as observers. Because light has the greatest possible speed for us as observers. So inside a light wave or light particle (photon) time stands still, nothing can move anymore as seen from a light particle. The speed of light through a glass cable is only 2/3 of the speed of light outside the glass cable, but even then this remains true within that glass cable, because there is nothing that can move faster through that glass cable. In all kinds of experiments with entanglements by means of light particles, you see that these paths have crossed each other, so they have had contact with each other through those pathways. So I think that must mean something. I think entangled particles have contact with each other through the fourth dimension in which in infinite parts I don't think space and time exist, which I think only exists in the third dimension, in the world around us as we know it (also, a third dimension with space and time could be overlapped at the same time with a third dimension without space and time, thus a visible and invisible space intertwined with each other). Consider, for example, the concept of (parallel) worlds / spaces that can coexist through the fourth dimension. In mathematics, anything is possible as long as it is mathematically correct. I have already indicated in my archive with figure 0.2A how particles could be entangled in this way, as is well known, vectors (those arrows) do not have to be visual in mathematics and certainly not in a fourth dimension (that is completely unknown territory for us). The connection through the fourth dimension are in this case the hidden parameters (variables).

That nothing can travel faster than light, not even information, is still true, because such a connection in the fourth dimension is not speed, there is no space and no time. Also, if two entangled particles are in systems where time runs differently, e.g. on Earth and in a rocket at high velocity in space, there are simply two different times connected to each other (which can normally be converted), as soon as one does something with that connection, such as measuring a property on a particle, the connection is gone (not if one only changes the state of those particles at a distance). It is true that these different times do not have to be simultaneous moments, but possibly this is mathematically compensated for the fact that the connection does not always have an exact immediate effect but adheres to simultaneity, so this requires difficult or impossible research in my opinion.

Yet another example about the fourth dimension from my archive. Motions are probably not continuous according to quantum mechanics, so e.g. if a car has a certain velocity, the car stays in the same location for a short time, and then goes to the other location timelessly, because the motion is not continuous. If this happens fast enough, the car seems to make a continuous movement. Of course, this also applies to every particle of that car, e.g. an electron, etc. I think this is also a function from the fourth dimension, the car or electron can be moved timelessly in its entirety (over a very short distance of course).

How do I see the fourth dimension? At first I thought that there must be an invisible space intertwined with the visible space. In the invisible space that does not contain space and time like the visible space, everything is controlled from that invisible space. Later, I called that invisible space the fourth dimension. There is an infinite amount of (possibly separate) storage possible (in mathematical form) to control eventually many (parallel) worlds / spaces (if they exist, otherwise only 1), I don't think it is necessary to include more dimensions.

What is the difference between a global time and a local time (as I think)? By time, of course, I mean the rhythm of time, the clock runs slower or faster in comparison. E.g. on Earth we have a time that is the same everywhere and is determined by the total energy of the Earth (traveling through space) as I think. At a location that does not move relative to the Earth, the local time is equal to the global time. On moving structures on Earth (think of a train / airplane etc.) the local time goes slower, but we measure the global time of that movement as a stationary observer on Earth, inside the train or airplane a traveling observer measures the local time, after all a moving object has received more energy (through energy exchange, e.g. fuel), but the total energy of the Earth remains the same. According to my mind, the time of moving elementary particles (or of all kinds of particles) is measured in global time or in the local time of the moving structure to which that particle belongs. So the time of a moving structure such as the Earth or a moving object on Earth is determined by the emergent energy (the total of energy of that moving structure). Just as I think that the local time on a light particle is 0 or timeless, I also think that the local time on an elementary particle (or of all kinds of particles) is also 0 or timeless. What do I think happens to an electron at absolute zero 0 degrees Kelvin (-273 degrees Celsius)? This electron still has the same energy that contributes to the emergent energy of the Earth, but the extra local kinetic energy (which also contributes to the emergent energy of the Earth) has been converted and has therefore become 0. Now the local time of 0 or timeless becomes visible, the electron is locally observable in several places at the same time, I think an effect of timelessness. In the fourth dimension, I think these multiple places are timelessly connected. For example, I think that light particles with a local time 0 or timeless, are also all connected to each other in the fourth dimension, at least certainly within the same light wave.

In a quantum computer, one uses the state of a particle that it has not yet taken on a value for properties, it does not have to be entangled yet, but entangled particles are also used. One can change the probability that a certain value is taken on for a property and that probability can be between 0 and 100%, so if that probability is less than 50%, that value of that property is usually NOT taken on and if the probability is greater than 50%, that value of that property IS usually taken on. A bit in an ordinary computer can be 0 or 1, but the probability of the value of a property in such a particle can be between 0 and 100%, so there are infinite possibilities. As soon as one measures the particle, there are two possibilities, it has that value of that property and is called 1 or not what is called 0. So just like in a normal computer, such a particle gives a 1 or 0 as a possibility. But then the question is, what good are those probabilities? Certain mathematicians have developed strategies that allow you to use those probabilities to solve certain problems, e.g. looking for a best solution to a certain problem, as is calculated with ordinary computers, but a quantum computer is much, much faster. Because probabilities are used, such a strategy has to be repeated several times, the result that occurs most often is the solution to the problem. You have to read about it yourself to understand it a little better. If I study quantum mechanics more deeply after this, I may be able to explain this better later.

E.g. Microsoft has a quantum computer that can be used by anyone over the internet (search for "azure") if you create an account first. This quantum computer can be programmed with a specially developed computer language, so you can write and try out your own program. When it is busy, you have to wait a few days for the result. The amazing thing about such a quantum computer is that it is actually possible to change the states of particles, e.g. at a temperature of -273 degrees Celsius. One can even perform the entanglement between two particles yourself, as scientists do in laboratories and thus see what the results are in measurements (using program instructions). With each program instruction, something is carried out automatically, e.g. shining a particle with laser light, which was initially carried out in laboratories by scientists, etc.

So first we thought of elementary particles such as light particles or electrons as a pile of energy, now it turns out to be small systems that can give properties a value according to a probability calculation that can be influenced by us. Nature is wonderfully put together and the bottom is always not reached, there is always something new to investigate. For example, it has already been possible to take a picture of two entangled light particles just as they have left the crystal ("https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-48971538"). You can see they are not spheres, but two luminous spots. Einstein thought it was a pity at the age of 70 that he had never understood what light was, that seems logical to me, we don't understand anything at all, we only find the connections as far as nature allows. That's why we can fly, for example. An invention is discovering what nature allows.

The deeper we dig, the more quirks we'll find. We still try to ignore something like an abstract fourth dimension, possibly there will come a day when we can no longer ignore it, and we will find out more and more what a peculiar world and space we live in.

Coming back to Bell's violation of inequality above. First the next example with identical twins, then about entangled particles that can also be considered as identical twins for their properties to be measured.

If you have two identical twins, you can measure the height (big or small in this case) or eye color (blue or brown in this case) or hair color (black or blonde in this case) in 1 of the identical twins and also know that this will be the same in the other identical twin. This is explained by the hidden parameter (variable) of DNA, which in the case of identical twins is the same for the properties to be measured. If one has a large group of identical twin pairs, one can mathematically reason the following: ("the number of large bluish twins") is less than or equal to (("the number of large twins with black hair") + ("the number of bluish twins with blond hair")). This is called Bell's inequality. But here are 3 known properties.

The same can be said for a large group of entangled particle pairs with three properties x, y, and z with values of 1 or 0, whatever they may be. Bell's inequality would then be: ("the number of particles with x1 and y1") is less than or equal to (("the number of particles with x1 and z1") + ("the number of particles with y1 and z0")). But here 2 properties are measured, and each property is measured to the other particle in the pair. This Bell's inequality does not seem to be correct in the case of entangled particles, which is therefore called the violation of Bell's inequality.

This gives me some dissatisfaction because with the identical twins there are 3 properties and with the entangled particles you only measure 2 properties. These 2 properties are also measured at the other particle, so e.g. x1 at one particle of the pair and y1 at the other particle of the pair, but should not matter, because what one measures would also apply to the other particle, one measures at the same time that they are still entangled, after the measurement the entanglement is broken. But if one only measures 2 properties in the identical twins, I also have an example that Bell's inequality is violated: e.g. one measures large and blue for 1 pair, all other pairs are a combination of small, blue and black hair or a combination of small, brown and blonde hair. As with the entangled particles, one is not allowed to reason on the third property that has not been measured.

4.

An analysis of quantum mechanics (continuously updated in 2024)

i) Sources consulted are the books "Principles of Quantum Mechanics" and "Basic Training in Mathematics (A Fitness Program for Science Students)" by R.S., Wiki miscellaneous information, some scientific reports, and supplemented with some thoughts of my own. For the time being, as an extra reference work for facts, the brand new book "Power of the Invisible (The Quantessence of Reality)" by S.B., later I will read this in full.

Blood creeps where it can't go, so I'm going to finish my analysis of quantum mechanics anyway, it's too interesting because of the concept of timelessness!

Curiosity is also great, why the theory of relativity does not yet fit into quantum mechanics. If we do not continue to exist in any way after death, I will have known this in time, whatever use that may be 🙂.

4a.

A historical brief overview of developments in physics (added in October 2024)

i) Sources consulted are the book "The Bedside Book of Physics" by I.M. and Wiki miscellaneous information

• ca. 624-545 v. Chr. Thales van Milete, Turkey: philosopher, e.g. the first theories about matter (primordial matter)
• ca. 460-356 v. Chr. Democritus, Greece: philosopher and mathematician, e.g. the first theory of atoms (particles)
• 384-322 v. Chr., Aristoteles, Greece: philosopher and scientist in various fields, e.g. the existence of an ether (if it later turns out to be dark matter, he was partly right)
• 287-212 v. Chr., Archimedes, Italy: mathematician and physicist, e.g. the theory of the lever and theory of the buoyant force
• 100-1500: end of the hegemony of the Ancient Greek civilization, Western science is almost at a standstill (to this day, always busy with wars or forcing one's own thoughts on others), continued in Persia (Iran, and parts of all the countries around it such as Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan etc.) and Middle East and the writings of the above scientists and others were preserved for the West
• 965-1040, Alhazen, Iraq: mathematician and astronomer, father of optics, e.g. developed the first camera
• 1473-1543, Nicolaas Copernicus, Poland: e.g. the theory of the planetary system with circular orbits around the sun
• 1571-1630, Johannes Kepler, Germany: e.g. the theory that orbits of planets have the elipse shape
• 1564-1642, Galileo Galilei, Italy: e.g. strong improvement of the telescope (originally developed in the Netherlands) and the theory that the pendulum time is always constant
• 1596-1650, René Descartes, France: e.g. the theory of the scientific method as a basis for research in general
• 1627-1691, Robert Boyle, Ireland: e.g. Boyle's law, the theory of the relationship between pressure and volume of gas
• 1643-1727, Isaac Newton, England: e.g. the theory of motion and gravity, and light moves in particles
• 1629-1695, Christiaan Huygens, Netherlands: e.g. the theory that light travels in waves, he was also the first theoretical physicist
• 1700-1782, Daniel Bernoulli, Netherlands: e.g. the theory of relation to pressure and particles (later atoms) in gases
• 1796-1832, Sadi Carnot, France: father of thermodynamics, such as the explanation of the operation of a steam engine (which had already been invented)
• 1824-1907, William Thomson, Ireland: e.g. the theory of the third law of thermodynamics, absolute zero; later received the title Lord Kelvin
• 1791-1867, Michael Faraday, England: e.g. the generation of an electric current by magnetism and vice versa
• 1831-1879, James Clerk Maxwell, Scotland: e.g. the 4 mathematical relations that establish the relationship between electricity and magnetism or electromagnetism
• 1766-1844, John Dalton, England: e.g. the atomic theory, everything is made up of atoms, tried to establish a list of all atomic masses of all chemical elements
• 1834-1907, Dmitri Mendelejev, Russia: e.g. the periodic table of all chemical elements
• 1773-1858, Robert Brown, Scotland: e.g. the proof that atoms really existed by means of pollen grains in a clear liquid such as water, which are constantly moving through the moving molecules in that liquid
• 1856-1940, J.J. Thompson, England: e.g. the discovery of the electron, so there existed something smaller than the atom
• 1871-1937, Ernest Rutherford, New Zealand: father of nuclear physics, e.g. the construction of an atom from particles (nucleus, protons, neutrons and electrons)
• 1852-1908, Henry Becquerel, France: e.g. the discovery of atomic radiation in certain chemical compounds, which passed right through materials
• 1867-1934, Marie Curie, Poland: e.g. the discovery of radioactive elements that were responsible for the above atomic radiation, and thus radioactive radiation
• 1858-1947, Max Planck, Germany: e.g. Plank h's constant, which is the smallest possible unit of radiation, later called photon, which makes up all electromagnetic radiation such as light, the foundation for quantum physics, everything consists of smallest units
• 1853-1928, Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, Netherlands: e.g. the theory about the constant speed of light, the basis for Einstein's theory of relativity (were good colleagues of each other)
• 1879-1955, Albert Einstein, Germany: e.g. light consists of both, waves and particles (photons), and of course the well-known theory of relativity
• 1885-1962, Niels Bohr, Denmark: e.g. applied quantum mechanics (was being developed as mathematics for quantum physics) first to the atomic model, electrons can only move around the nucleus in certain shells (energy levels)
• 1888-1925, Alexander Friedmann, Rusland: e.g. founder of the groundbreaking theory that the universe is expanding (Big Bang)
• 1892-1987, De Broglie, France: e.g. all matter can be seen as both a wave and a particle, not just light, which is how the number of electrons in a shell around the nucleus could be explained
• 1901-1976, Werner Heisenberg, Germany: e.g. the uncertainty principle or the complete absence of certainty, e.g. you cannot know the location and velocity of an electron simultaneously, certain measurable properties of particles come in pairs that are inseparable, they are complementary
• 1902-1984, Paul Dirac, England: e.g. the theory that in addition to all types of particles there are also anti-particles (anti-matter), e.g. we know an electron, but there are also positrons with opposite charges, but these only exist for a short time
• 1887-1961, Edwin Schrödinger, Austria: e.g. the theory of probability waves of particles in quantum physics, the probability of finding a particle in a certain place. Note: but light is a real wave, isn't it? Light can be seen as both an electromagnetic wave and a particle, but it is neither (at present). But with the probability wave, it can be seen as a particle in a certain location.
• 1918-1988, Richard Feynman, United States: e.g. the theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED), for every piece of matter we are made of, every force or action, everything comes down to the behavior of light and electrons, which in QED only consists of 3 actions
• 1901-1958, Ernst Lawrence, United States: e.g. the first artificial particle accelerator, so that's how the large particle accelerators were built later
• 1929-2024, Peter Higgs, England: e.g. together with François Englert (Belgium) predicts the Higgs boson particle and has been found with the large particle accelerator, it seems to be responsible for the mass of particles of which this Higgs boson particle must be a part, by so-called Higgs fields present everywhere in space, all matter acquires a mass
• 1873-1916, Karl Schwarzschild, Germany: e.g. the Schwarzschild radius, the mathematically calculated changed diameter of a black hole due to its changed mass
• 1942-2018, Stephen Hawking, England: e.g. the theory of emitting Hawking radiation from a black hole, and a black hole has 1 point which is timeless, there is no more space and time in that point (singularity), black holes can also be as small as particles and can exist for a short time around the large particle accelerators
• In research: the expanding universe or its end with possible nasty consequences, the eternal riddle of gravity, finding a theory of everything, quantum computers, etc.

4b.

The General Theory of Relativity, brief explanation of curved space(-time) (added in November 2024)

i) Sources consulted are the books "Einstein: My Theory" by A.E. and "A Brief History of Time" by S.H & L.M., Wiki miscellaneous information, and supplemented with some personal thoughts. For the time being, as an extra reference work for facts / formulas, the new book (3rd edition) "A First Course in General Relativity" by B.S., later I will read this in full, already fully engaged in it now since 2025. Also a useful pure mathematics reference to have is "Table of Integrals, Series, and Products" by D.Z. (1150 pages, 8th edition).

With the help of the initial thoughts in chapter 2 about gravity, my view of gravity is now as follows.

With the Big Bang, positive energy (objects and light) and negative energy (space) arose out of nowhere (energy total 0) that work against each other through the split, in order to remain split, because that is the idea of the Big Bang, but positive energies do attract each other or have the great tendency to want to form 1 whole, also positive energies form the local concept of time.
So all positive energy in space is opposed in totality by all negative energy in space, so proportionally every amount of positive energy is opposed by an equal part of that negative energy e.g. in the movement of an object (is positive energy) through space. That's the opposition that ½.m.v² of energy costs once (energy does not disappear so the total positive energy of the object increases), because in space there is no friction as there is on Earth. No matter how large the total positive energy is in the space (getting bigger or smaller), proportionally the opposition from the negative energy always remains the same.
Positive energies also tend to want to become 1 and we call that gravity, as a result we keep both feet on the ground on Earth, without that gravity that would not have been possible. The greater a positive energy is, the greater its energy density, the greater its associated gravitational force. So if an object (is positive energy) moves faster through space, its positive energy becomes greater, its energy density is greater, and therefore so does its gravity.
In my opinion, gravity is the phenomenon that positive energy is (temporarily) granted to the other object that seems to be attracted, because the positive energy of the attracted object increases due to its increasing velocity and that energy has to come from somewhere, so I think from the attracting object. In this way, even light is attracted, but only has a visible effect with very large positive energies such as the sun, because they can lend relatively positive energy to such small light particles. I think if the attracted object moves away from the attracting object, the positive energy granted for the attraction process is returned, so that is what I mean by the possible temporary. Everything is back to normal after that and the amounts of positive energies are back to normal. No matter how large the total positive energy is in space (increases or decreases), proportionally the attraction between positive energies remains the same, which is why gravity does not change.
So because positive energy is granted or lent, gravity is not a real force but an apparent force, because with a real force the positive energy itself has to be supplied, but for calculations of that positive energy you can consider it as an apparent force. The phenomenon of gravity, or the lending of positive energy, is therefore only controlled by nature. It is possible that all the laws associated with this are not yet fully known.
They are just thoughts, but if the Moon is close, the Earth would lend the most positive energy to the Moon, and if I then bring in my shrinkage story, there is less shrinkage on Earth with less positive energy and the water could rise like at high tide and of course only visible in large deep bodies of water such as the sea. But again, they're just thoughts. Then a clock around that area should also run a little faster, on the Moon a little slower. It would also be possible that the positive energy granted by the attracting object (Earth) is seen as a whole of the attracting object (Earth) and therefore the gravity always remains the same in that process (also of the Moon). At the atomic level, positive energy is then granted to the Moon that is getting closer, and the positive energy of atoms on Earth decreases (possibly locally), the atoms on Earth then move further apart and water expands (at low tide it would shrink) and that is only visible in deep oceans and therefore not in lakes. Gravity still remains a challenge in physics, I have the idea that Einstein only described the consequences of gravity.
My conclusion, therefore, is that celestial bodies that orbit somewhere in space at a higher velocity than expected, can never shoot out of their orbit with a certain total amount of positive energy, because they are always held in place proportionally according to the laws that belong to this apparent force, which is not a real force. As I think with a rotating celestial body in orbit, there is an equilibrium situation in which a piece of positive energy is given microscopically and the same piece of positive energy is returned by the gravity phenomenon. So the rotation only takes a one-time energy for the movement. So if this velocity is higher than expected, then that equilibrium will only be reached. Maybe it has something to do with objects that are normal sized, but have a higher or lower density of positive energy etc.

One more time with my view of gravity:

In fact, everything can be explained with energy, whereby the concept of energy itself is a mystery, so it seems as if we think in a kind of vicious circle, we think we can explain everything and in the end we end up with energy that is a mystery in itself, but we refuse to see that (in my opinion).
There are currently 4 fundamental forces of nature, but forces always have to do with positive energy, to get something done with power you need positive energy, so it's always about the mystery of energy.
So possibly all the fundamental forces of nature have to do with attracting positive energies, which tend to want to become 1 whole but still remain separate (in solid form). You should not confuse the concept of positive energy (in my opinion) with positive or negative charges of particles, because both have a positive energy, but can have a repulsive effect on each other due to their charge as particles, but in an atom everything stays together nicely.
So possibly gravity is the same force as all 3 fundamental forces of nature at the quantum level, but just a combined 4th fundamental force of nature at the macroscopic level. I also think that time only exists on a macroscopic level, so an emergent property, but possibly that value can be applied on a quantum level, some physicists think that gravity is also an emergent property that only exists on a macroscopic level and is not present at all on a quantum level, I can imagine that too. Just as you consider an object at the macroscopic level while the particles are considered at the quantum level, so you can also see light at the macroscopic level while the particles (photons) are considered at the quantum level, so just like an object, light is also subject to gravity (and can therefore deflect) in certain situations.
Movement of an object in space (no friction) costs positive energy and it has to come from somewhere through conversion, but that positive energy is stored in the object so that all particles get an increased positive energy or the energy density increases.
In gravity, attraction leads to a movement in which that positive energy is delivered by the attracting objects to a certain maximum, possibly temporarily. Think, for example, of weightlessness of a person in a falling object (such as an elevator can be) where the positive energy granted to that person is maximum, one can then move with very little positive energy.
So e.g. the Earth and Moon attract each other and give each other positive energy through the gravitational process (positive energy granting), if that Moon has ended up in an orbit around the Earth due to circumstances, there may have been a state of equilibrium in a certain orbit and the corresponding velocity, that both (including the kinetic energy of the Moon in the orbit around the Earth, which is not small with such a large object) do not give each other any positive energy and there is therefore no reason for any additional movement in that orbit or towards the Earth. This then applies to all locations in that orbit where the amount of that granted positive energy can be variable, such as with the tidal changes, where it seems at high tide that the Earth has the least positive energy in that region at that time, causing the water to rise.

Normally I'm only interested in the basic theory, but I want to understand the part about curved space(-time) in general relativity.

Just as there are field lines around a magnet, which do not cause space to curve but simply form curved paths around a magnet, I always imagined curved space due to gravity, which describe possible curved paths / orbits for objects around e.g. the Earth. Since one really do talk about curved space, I want to understand this better. If it really turns out to be curved space, then it has to be constantly curved because our solar system itself travels through space, so I keep the idea that they are curved orbits. I'm curious. In the meantime I know (if I have understood correctly) that they are curved orbits.

Einstein's equivalence principle holds that the paths of loose objects inside an accelerated rocket somewhere in space far away from gravitational fields are the same as in a gravitational field. One cannot find out by measurements whether one is in a gravitational field or inside an accelerated rocket. I have never understood this, because according to me in a gravitational field a falling object gets more and more energy, loose objects inside a rocket far from gravitational fields do not experience forces such as gravity and seem to move accelerated towards the bottom of the rocket, in fact the bottom of the rocket moves towards the loose object, so the loose object does not get increasing energy, only when the bottom takes the loose object with it, does it receive extra energy from the rocket. So I think there is a difference, namely the energy of the object during its "journey", but possibly this difference cannot be measured in the two situations. If one could measure the exact energy of objects, then you would have the difference. You also often see that a loose object in that rocket has a curved orbit, which then has to simulate the rotation of the Earth, so the rocket rotates a little bit.
But in terms of movement it must be the same, in a gravitational field the same movement is created but by energy granting.

I first read some articles on the internet about the general theory of relativity and now I understand better what they mean, especially this short video "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdC0QN6f3G4" gives the best picture. So you have to think of the Einstein effect as a kind of diagram like the Minkowski diagram was used for the moving train car. In this diagram you can clearly see that the local time of the falling apple goes slower and slower downwards (column widens downwards for the same unit of time, 1 second passes slower and slower or takes longer), because the falling apple gets more and more energy and just like in the moving train car, the local time then goes slower. So in this diagram that is cleverly indicated in 1 image. This image is curving because it is only correct in that way in terms of proportions, so it is not curved space, but curved spacetime (read below). There is no gravity indicated, but because extra energy is also added for the movement, an apparent force is active. The straight line in the diagram is called a geodesic and is mathematically the shortest distance to the ground, in each point you can see the location and the local time, in special mathematics about curvatures (not Euclidean mathematics) you can prove that these points in this case are on a straight line in this curved diagram (A nice example of a geodesic is also the shortest way between 2 locations on our globe. Take, for example, the largest circle on our globe and that is, for example, the equator. Rotate this circle around the globe in such a way that it goes through the first location, then rotate that circle around the globe again where the pivot point is the first location, then let that circle go through the second location, so both locations are now on that circle, the distance across this circle from first to second location is the shortest distance possible on our globe. This applies to all locations on this circle, which is why every circle, such as the equator with the center of the globe as its center, is called a geodesic.).
Only I see this as the effects of gravity, but not an alternative to Newton's way of thinking, only Einstein has refined this way of thinking since the discovery that time can slow down and mass is 100% positive energy. So, once again, these are my personal opinions.
First, you have to ask yourself what moves something? Suppose something is hanging stationary in space where there is no gravity, it is held in place by all the negative energy around it, so opposed from all sides, if you apply force to it for a moment, then you actually add positive energy to it in a certain direction and then it starts to move in that direction because the opposition of the negative energy has been overcome. Or if there is gravitational force applied to that stationary object by a nearby heavy object, positive energy is added to that stationary object in the direction of that heavy object and then begins to move in that direction. And how that gravitational process works still needs to be figured out. Just like the strong nuclear force in an atom, positive energy is attracted to each other, so gravity is quite conceivable and nothing stranger than that. So for me, an apple still falls off a tree exactly as Newton analyzed it.
The funny thing about Einstein is that, thanks to the momentum of light, he found the formula of e = m . c² of an object (matter). Then he began to include energy in the sophisticated laws of gravity and eventually found that not only objects were attracted, but all forms of energy such as light.
What do I think happens to a falling object? It is given positive energy (from the attracting object, now the Earth) and starts to move extra in the direction of the attracting object, and is given more and more positive energy because the attraction is getting bigger and bigger and therefore starts to accelerate (as happens with a real force, the applied positive energy is getting bigger and bigger). In each stage, the positive energy of that object increases and the local time goes slower and slower, because different objects (size, weight, etc.) all fall simultaneously with gravity (they had already discovered in the past), so the local time on those objects always slows down by the same factor. Thus, it appears to be a gravitational field in which local time progresses more and more slowly in the direction of the attracting object. If you look at my moving train car example and you imagine that that train car starts to accelerate due to a constant force on that train, you get exactly the same effect, the light (photon) goes slower and slower in the train car because the local time goes slower and slower (light speed always remains constant in the local time), but stays at the same level as the light (photon) along the rails. If you could do this vertically by moving the train car from a height in free fall downwards along a vertical rails, the same thing would happen, only the force horizontal is replaced by an apparent force that we call gravity, we do not administer positive energy ourselves but that does the apparent force.
What is meant by spacetime? That time can pass differently in every location in space due to circumstances, well that is clear in the train car example and beyond. Spatially, the local time of both photons is different, while the spatial location can be the same, so spacetime is always indicated by 4 coordinates, 3 for the location (x,y,z) and 1 for the time (t), so (x,y,z,t), but the time is just a value in the third dimension just like temperature.
So with gravity, local time is different at certain altitudes (at least for an object present at that location, it could also just be a clock, we see a vertical beam of light from Earth in our own time), in fact slower and slower downwards. Einstein calls this the distortion of spacetime around a mass or positive energy, the greater, the greater that distortion is. If you watch that video above, you can say mathematically that spacetime is curved, but that is purely mathematical, nothing changes in space, a cubic meter of space is still a cubic meter of space (with any curved paths of objects or light in it). You can also see that the apple moves in curved spacetime, in a straight line that is called a geodesic, but that also has a mathematical meaning, for us ordinary people an apple just falls straight down. So I think that spacetime does indeed distort due to gravity, but an apple falls down because of Newton's gravity and not because of that distorted spacetime, that distorted spacetime is a result of Newton's gravity. But Einstein's modified formulas of Newton yield even more in the general theory of relativity such as black holes, gravitational waves, that the universe may be expanding, etc. and that everything has to do with positive energy.
Why do I think the positive energy for gravity should be granted from the attracting object (e.g. the Earth)?
That positive energy cannot come from the attracted object (e.g. a meteorite) itself, because e.g. the total positive energy of a falling object has to increase in order to accelerate. If the positive energy is also not provided by the attracting object, then the positive energy must come from the environment, e.g. from the negative energy in space (which then becomes more negative), but from which locations exactly, because the entire solar system travels through space and thus seems to leave those transparent particles with negative energy behind it. Then that positive energy must come from the attracting object because it travels with it. In the case of a falling object, it could be borrowed from the attracting object because it returns the positive energy when it crashes either the energy density of both attracting and attracted object will be the same, and when the attracting object passes by, that positive energy can be returned.

Actually, my way of thinking is confirmed by the gravitational wave, oh yes how?
Gravitational waves prove that positive energy can be used over and over again and thus never disappears, the law of conservation of energy.
For example, a gravitational wave comes through a fixed object, temporarily increases the positive energy that actually leads to action (the object shrinks), and when the gravitational wave has departed, that action is undone, and this has actually been proven by an experiment that it is so. So clearly work has been done but it has not cost anything, so space is indeed a perpetual motion machine. Quite amazing that energy, it seems like a make-believe world, because the total amount of positive and negative energy is 0. Without energy, the local time must have been 0 before the Big Bang, in fact there was just nothing compared to our kind of world.
Then look again at movement. If an object can move freely as it does in space and it is given extra positive energy, either with a force or in some other way, then it will move extra and the density of positive energy of that object will be increased. If it can't move freely, like that fixed object above, then the density of positive energy is increased, but it doesn't move extra.
The behaviour of the gravitational wave is therefore exactly reminiscent of the effect of gravity. The attracting object (e.g. the Earth) temporarily provides energy to the attracted object (e.g. a meteorite) which can move freely and therefore moves extra. But just as the total positive energy of the gravitational wave belongs to the gravitational wave itself, positive energy is temporarily granted, so the total positive energy of the attracting object remains the same but positive energy is temporarily granted. So the total positive energy of the attracting object, is the remaining positive energy left behind + the granted temporary positive energy to the attracted object, so it is seen by nature as 1. In this way, a falling attracted object can be explained on the attracting object. When a falling object passes by the attracting object, the temporarily granted positive energy is returned, just like with the gravitational wave, you can describe this as that there is no more apparent force of attraction. This process of delivered positive energy, just like with the gravitational wave, is still unknown to me. A falling object returns all borrowed positive energy on the surface either the energy density of both attracting and attracted object will be the same.

What do I think happens when an attracted object (e.g. a rocket) leaves the attracting object (e.g. the Earth)?
In the case of a falling attracted object, more and more positive energy is granted by the attracting object, the density of positive energy in that attracted object increases and increases, so around that attracting object there are layers in which proportionally more and more positive energy is granted, and therefore the local time goes slower and slower in the direction of the surface of the attracting object. So the other way around it is the same, the higher the less positive energy is granted, so positive energy has to be returned by the attracted object (the same as with a gravitational wave that leaves again). So when the attracted object is back in space, the positive energy is back as before (and also with the attracting object).

But what positive energy do I think is needed to make the attracted object, e.g. a rocket, move in the opposite direction of the Earth, leaving friction aside for a moment?
In the first layers close to the Earth, most of the positive energy is granted in the hope that the rocket will return to Earth (but it's already in the stationary rocket), then that granted positive energy becomes less and less, the apparent force of attraction becomes less. So the total positive energy or the mass of that rocket is then the largest and then the most positive energy of that total is needed as real power by means of fuel for the engines to get that whole mass moving, whereby that fuel (which is already positive energy) is converted back into positive energy and a part is lost in the atmosphere, the rocket gains speed just like an object in space.
In the following layers, more and more of that granted positive energy is returned to Earth, so the mass of that rocket decreases. So the Earth does lose a little bit of positive energy, which is now in the mass of the rocket, but the density of energy on Earth has not increased noticeably due to the energy return, so the velocity of the Earth with the solar system remains the same, the gravity has not increased noticeably.

Now, when the Moon revolves around the Earth, I believe it does so at a velocity at which microscopically as much positive energy is granted as it is returned, and therefore remains in its orbit. At high tide, the Moon is closest to the Earth and the Earth grants the most positive energy to the Moon, which is why it comes so close but remains in its orbit due to its velocity. Because the Earth then has the least positive energy in that region, the water rises, visible at deep bodies of water such as the sea. But the total positive energy of the Earth remains its remaining positive energy + granted positive energy, just like with the gravitational wave, so the gravity does not change.

I read in some article that the distances near the Earth are the shortest and then I was reminded of my shrinkage story, especially in the vertical direction, but this has nothing to do with it according to my own thoughts. On Earth, everything associated with the Earth's energy density has already shrunk. My shrinkage story belongs to densified energy or a higher energy density (e.g. with movement on Earth), matter shrinks in all directions and local time goes slower, the surrounding space remains normal. That's how I see it in the general theory of relativity, with the granted energy by gravity as I think. So I think that the surrounding space does not get smaller, but that the matter shrinks, as for example when an object falls towards the Earth. So the fact that distances become shorter has to do with the fact that a ruler farther away from the Earth, shrinks less, so is a slightly longer, because the density of positive energy in that ruler decreases due to returning positive energy to the Earth, whereby the energy density on Earth remains almost the same.

What about a rotating disk and the centrifugal force compared to gravity?
For a real force, energy must be supplied, e.g. with manpower, if one exerts a constant force on an object in space (or on Earth, thinking away the friction for a moment) then this object will move faster. Conversely, when energy is supplied, as is the case with gravity, an apparent force is created, whereby an object also accelerates. But because e.g. in accelerated falling, the max. energy is granted, you cannot be attracted more, you can still move while falling and you do not feel this force.
With a rotating disk with a constant velocity at a certain location in space (no friction), the energy is apparently distributed from low to high from center to the edge, as if an object is accelerated from the center to the edge, or there is also an apparent force directed towards the edge as in gravity (directed towards the Earth). So more and more towards the edge, the energy density is greater, and a clock attached to the disk slows down, the time delay factor that can depend on the velocity is also correct in this case, because towards the edge the local velocity increases. A person (or object) on the edge of the disc now feels this force and is in danger of being thrown away because the direction of the movement keeps changing and giving a counterforce becomes increasingly difficult. You could say why do you feel this force, because the energy for spinning for the disc has to be supplied by yourself.

Figure 8 (gravitational field)

In the figure 8 above as I see gravity (but applies around every object).
The Earth has an positive energy density that I indicate with D = 1, positive energy density indicates both local time and gravity, the higher that positive energy density the greater the gravity and the slower the local time, so on Earth this is the duration of 1 second as we know it. On the Moon, this positive energy density is smaller (so D is much smaller in comparison), which is why the gravitational force is smaller there and the local time runs a little faster. On the Sun, the positive energy density is the greatest (so D is much bigger in comparison), so there is a greater gravity and the local time runs a little slower.
Around the Earth there are layers where the positive energy density decreases in the direction of space, I have indicated this with made-up numbers in the form of percentages compared to the Earth. It is not the case (I think) that there is actually positive energy present there with less density, but that an object present in that location is given positive energy by the Earth (moves in the direction of the Earth) or gives positive energy back to the Earth (moves in the direction of space), and that object then has more positive energy (e.g. moves from D = 0.93 to D = 0.94 and then receives 1% more positive energy from its total granted and vice versa returned), this also applies, for example, to a stationary clock at a certain altitude, so the local time of that object becomes slower or faster depending on the direction. Farther away from the Earth, the distance between those layers is increasing, and around the Sun, those layers are closer together in comparison because of the greater gravity. So when light passes by the Earth at the speed of light through a few small layers (speed is large), photons (light particles) are given a small amount of energy (or extra photons are created) and light will therefore deflect minimally. Around the Sun this is much more in comparison (higher percentages in the few small layers) and then bends more strongly.
You might think e.g. the Earth consists of atoms and the positive energy in those atoms determines the positive energy density of the Earth, in the layers around it (outside the atmosphere) there are no atoms present, but if there were in terms of space just like on Earth, the positive energy would be distributed over several atoms proportionally and the positive energy density would become less and less, that then translates into the attraction.
Suppose you have two random objects of the Earth at the same height, e.g. a piece of concrete or a matchstick. Then they first get the same positive energy density (which was 1 on Earth), so both lose the same amount of positive energy in terms of ratio. If they both fall (in vacuum), they both fall at the same velocity because they regain proportionally the same positive energy.
When there is random movement somewhere in space, an increased positive energy density leads to more movement. Therefore, I personally would not be surprised (just a thought) that something is attracted in the direction of an increased positive energy density, so if something in a layer of the Earth is stationary somewhere in space with a higher positive energy density than that layers have, that it will not move and will therefore be attracted (so that possibly 2 planets with the same positive energy density far in empty space do not attract each other). For example, small stationary objects on Earth do not attract each other because they all have the same positive energy density. But something with velocity follows its direction of course, even in a gravitational field, and is then also given positive energy as long as the energy density of that something is not greater than that in the layer. This may also be why atoms do not attract each other. And that's why gravity seems only to occur on a macro level (different energy densities). I think there is little gravity between atoms because both atoms have the same positive energy density, but the moment they are given extra positive energy, it does not happen simultaneously, where the atoms move towards each other for a while, so that the whole object shrinks or expands the other way around, then they all have the same energy density again and have little gravity again, there is no longer any reason to move.
But as we know, a spacecraft can gain extra speed by passing by a planet, so in addition to the local gravity where as much positive energy is given as it is returned, an object is also attracted by gravity in the velocity of the planet, and an object also gets extra positive energy granted by the planet outside of local gravity and that planet loses that granted extra positive energy when such an object passes by.

And I think it works in a black hole in the same way as it does around the Earth, with the difference that it is a huge mountain of positive energy and thus attracts everything (or gives it maximum positive energy). In the middle in 1 point, the local time is 0, due to the enormous clumped positive energy / mass that has gradually built up and shrunk to the maximum. And the opposition of space that forms the concept of time, I think, also applies to the movements by gravity, only this is no longer as linear as without gravity, but it all revolves around the same resistance and positive energy that winds through it because of a different pattern. The only thing that remains for me is the mystery of how that energy supply works, but that is still a mystery, also for others. I think maybe again just like with entangled particles, via the fourth dimension, but now an object / light receives or returns energy. In that fourth dimension I do not mean time as the fourth coordinate, but a coordinate that indicates a separate "world", I consider time as a value in the 3-dimensional world that arises due to the opposition of the negative energy present in the space.

Today I suddenly saw everything more clearly according to my own thoughts. The idea that gravity can only exist at the macro level (see above) and the idea in general relativity that gravity does not go directly as Newton thought, but via a gravitational field according to Einstein. So gravity can just come from the atoms because the positive energy is stored in them and therefore has to be granted from those atoms. So just like with magnetism and electricity, there are gravitational fields that in this case exchange pure positive energy (think also of gravitational waves). How that exchange takes place is not yet known (because no positive energy may be lost), can go through the fourth dimension but possibly also directly. So everything I've described above can go like this in reality. So gravity is indeed a fourth force of nature. It reacts to positive energy densities, which is why there is no gravity or no attraction between atoms themselves (where it comes from). And because positive energy densities can be different for objects and light, positive energy is exchanged between their atoms or light particles (photons). Because that connection is direct, the granted positive energy remains attached to the attracting object so that its gravity does not change.
I think some of us think that local time is connected to a fixed location, such as in layers of gravitational fields, but I don't believe that just like I don't believe it in empty space. There is only local time when there is positive energy at a location, e.g. as in my train car example. So if one places a clock in such a layer, then it functions as an object with a reduced positive energy and therefore indicates a faster running local time, without that clock or object in that location there is no local time. Suppose e.g. that a large meteorite hurtles down through layers with a greater positive energy density than the Earth, then the local time at the same location is slower. Also keep in mind that a gravitational field, like an object in motion, does not stand still, because everything travels through space at a velocity and that includes a local time for the corresponding positive energy.
In a gravitational field, so there are 2 factors that determine a local time, the opposition of the negative energy in space as with other moving objects, and the positive energy provided by gravity. When an object (that is already in motion in space) in a gravitational field is "stationary" only the positive energy granted is involved for the changed local time, when moving within the same field the opposition of the negative energy plays a role, that opposition can be greater with more positive energy granted or less with returned positive energy.

But I'm going to read the above 2 books first (who knows how I'll think after that, also nice to get to know the people themselves) and hopefully then finally continue with quantum mechanics.

I have now read the book written by Einstein himself in 1916, and it has become clearer. The apple still falls down by gravity as Newton thought, only not directly but via a gravitational field, so an object or positive energy is still attracted, and therefore also light or positive energy when the gravity is large as with the sun (or in a black hole). In the special theory of relativity, everything is viewed by observers within frames of reference that move in a straight line relative to each other, matter also moves in a straight line, this is always viewed without friction, so as if it takes place far in space and where no gravity is present. Also, all frames have coordinate systems (x,y,z,t) as we learned them in school (with perpendicular axes). All laws of physics remain valid within these frames (all have a mathematical relationship with each other, each frame can be converted to another frame), so if one has derived a law of physics in such a frame (e.g. in my example along the rails), then one can derive the same law of physics in another frame (e.g. in my example in the train car). Such a law of nature can be, for example, the constant speed of light. So my examples with the train car are all special relativity. In general relativity, a frame of reference with an observer can move in any direction (e.g. zigzagging, rotating etc.) with an arbitrary Gaussian coordinate system, instead of perpendicular axes these can be arbitrary curved axes and also the points can be randomly positioned on curved lines, Gauss has developed a mathematics for this, at certain values it can also become a coordinate system with perpendicular axes as we know them from school, which is why the special theory of relativity also applies within the general theory of relativity. Also from all those frames all the laws of physics must be deduced with what one observes in such a frame. These frames may also contain gravitational fields. Also, all frames can be converted to any other frame. The limitations are that all the laws of physics that can be derived in the frames from the special theory of relativity can also be derived in any frame from the general theory of relativity. In this compelling way, Einstein has been able to describe gravity in a more refined way than Newton, and also think of black holes, for example. It is true that concepts such as time and length contraction can differ per point in a gravitational field, there is no constant time delay or length contraction as in the special theory of relativity, because this all has to do with positive energy (as I think anyway) that can be different in every point of a gravitational field (e.g. also think of a rotating disk with the centrifugal force, is also a kind of gravitational field).

I have already read a lot, unfortunately Einstein's book himself and not Hawking's book gives an explanation why something moves under gravity, but that it moves through space and time or spacetime (logical), and all the articles by physicists on the internet do not explain that either (it just seems to be complicated). But when I read Einstein's book itself, I don't think it claims at all that the apple falls from the tree due to curved spacetime, I think others claim that, the apple literally goes through curved spacetime while falling and possibly follows a minimally curved orbit, but still falls due to Newton's gravity or the fourth force of nature. It also strikes me that most physicists, including Hawking himself, keep talking about force of attraction.
Anyway we read on in the extra reference book, unfortunately I now have to spend more time on it than intended because I want to understand it for quantum mechanics. So I understand that there is a gravitational field like magnetic and electric fields. The gravitational field has a certain shape like around the Earth and different in a black hole due to extreme amounts of positive energy and all the laws of physics must continue to apply to observers in moving frames of reference from all sides, but I still have to figure out that objects have to follow curved paths like at a minimum for a falling apple. Although this doesn't have to have much influence on the quantum level, I still want to know now. I may have an idea of it, the Earth is spherical, distances are curved, the Earth rotates via a curved orbit, the attraction of the Earth to an apple can come from various directions at the atomic level, and can then possibly give a minimally curved orbit. Because of Newton you were used to thinking that something falls straight down, but because of attraction from various directions, it no longer has to be dead straight. Of course, the path and the corresponding local time at each location during the fall is a bit different, due to the layers of the gravitational field. And Gauss had developed a mathematics for curvatures, in which a shortest path through curvatures is called a geodesic that is followed even by the apple, and which seems to be followed by objects in Einstein's gravitational field (and also planets around the sun). But all that is just a consequence of the gravitational field or the gravity by atoms, and you shouldn't turn it around, that the apple moves through distorted space and time or spacetime, it moves through gravity that takes a slightly different route because of all the laws of nature that have to continue to apply and the associated mathematics, so it seems as if space and time or spacetime are distorted, but I don't think space changes, only routes change into curved orbits (space may expand outside of all this). In Einstein's final formula for the shape of the gravitational field, there is a piece of Newtonian theory + a piece of theory of the rotating disk + an extra piece about the relative part, as well as details found from the equivalence principle. Einstein was a mathematical artist in combining various theories developed by other scientists, and especially those of Gaussian mathematically in particular. Einstein once told a friend that he had himselves been exhausted 10 years on the general theory of relativity, so it must have given him a great feeling of satisfaction when he successfully drafted it. I think I already understand a lot, but I'm going to check that in my reference book (to be on the safe side that the space itself is not really distorted), which fortunately I don't have to read in its entirety anymore, maybe later, although I don't need to know all the details. But I have decided to read the entire reference book (it is not in a hurry and I am already quite advanced), so I can reason my views better after a few weeks / months, and possibly I will think differently, quite exciting!

You also see that in physics it takes a while to wait for new theories, Newton in 1684 and only later in 1915 (230 years later) more detailed by Einstein, and now already 110 years ago. So it depends on scientists with passion and a lot of perseverance and must also have the time available. A person in general in this day and age is already much busier with various activities and therefore has less time, so new extensive theories will take even longer to emerge (I think).

Figure 1 (belonging at example of simultaneity above, and shrinking vertically, so perpendicular to the direction of movement) (in our system 0.75s / c, in the moving system possibly 0.866 is measured but I think now 1) (Oct. 2025) This figure 1 has been a useful aid, ultimately resolved in figure 5d. See explanation under figure 5c.

Figure 2 (belonging at example of simultaneity above, and shrinking horizontally, so in the direction of movement) (in our system 0.75s / c, in the moving system possibly 0.866 is measured but I think now 1)

Figure 3 (belonging at example of simultaneity above, shrinking units and objects)

Figure 4 (belonging at example of simultaneity above, (Aug. 2025 added) position of photon in train car and along the rails shown below the diagram)

Explanation (corrected):
Belonging to examples above, but leaving aside my shrinkage story for a moment, it is about the current theory brought into focus in a so-called Minkowski diagram. In this diagram one can see simultaneity, i.e. moments that are simultaneous for the stationary observer and the moving observer, see definition of simultaneity later (determined with light).
The t and x axes belong to the stationary observer along the rails, the t' and the x' axis belong to the observer travelling in the moving train car.
The red line represents the photon (light) along the rails, which arrived at the point (x₁,t₁) after 1.5s, x₁ is 1.5c. All observers see the same speed of light c in their own time, so the red line can be used by both to measure something.
This diagram is set up in such a way that everything is expressed in c (the distance light travels at the speed of light in 1s), so in fact c indicates the time, a distance traveled of 1c indicates 1 second for both observers in their own time.
The dotted line at 1s indicates 1s in each location along the rails for the stationary observer.
The line (partly dotted) between 0.75s and the point (x₁,t₁) indicates the time 0.866s for all observers in the moving train car at each location in that moving train car.
At t'₁ the lines of both observers intersect, and at that point it is 1s for the stationary observer and 0.866s for the observer in the train car, so the time for the observer in the train car goes slower. So a moving clock (in the train car) slows down.
At 0.75s the lines of both observers also cross, in that point it is 0.75s for the stationary observer and outside the train car at that location also 0.866s, so time goes faster there for the moving observer you would think, I think that's a misunderstanding, only the time for the moving observer goes slower and for the stationary observer faster, but this point also has another explanation if you look at it the other way around with relativity (see later). Don't forget that this is a point in space outside the train car, there is no matter there, there is no moving clock there, as soon as you start measuring something there you need matter that travels separately from the train car, then the same story applies again. Suggest that you let a clock travel along with that train car. Then the same diagram applies to that clock, but the point of simultaneity is -0.25s instead of 0s for the stationary observer. That clock is then 0.25s earlier simultaneous than at 0s in the diagram, as the crow flies, 1 second has elapsed also for the stationary observer for that traveling clock in 0.75s. So you have to look at this as the crow flies, but from 0s in the moving train car it was already viewed as the crow flies. Also at 0s, the moving train car has the full velocity, but we have a stopwatch running at 0s, so it is only a snapshot.
In this example we use large distances, for smaller distances and smaller velocities as in everyday life, all these numbers are about the same.
In the train car itself, time slows down, but for simultaneity between the two observers (outside and inside the train car), there are only 2 locations (points) simultaneously.
You can see in the diagram that the further you go in the train car to the right, at each location (point) in the train car for a certain time, as here for 0.866s, there is always another location (point) outside the train car along the rails simultaneously with it. This all has to do with the definition of simultaneity in which light is used, between 2 locations characterized by place and time (x,t). If you measure the time from a location A (x_a) that a beam of light goes back and forth to another location B (x_b), then the arrival time in location B (x_b,t_b) is simultaneously with half of the total travel time in location A (x_a,t_a). But that difference in simultaneity also applies to the 0s points in the train car in locations to the right. Again, when we look at it as the crow flies, 1 second has elapsed for the stationary observer along the rails. So we have now seen that in every location in the train car, the clock slows down at the same rate. And outside along the rails in front of the stationary observer, time passes faster everywhere.
This diagram shows a movement from a resting state. So in this case, the rails and surroundings are the resting state, and the moving train car is the movement. So you can't turn this around, and take the moving train car as the resting state and take the rails as the motion, because then the calculations don't add up (then the time along the rails would slow down but a stationary clock along the rails doesn't slow down, etc.). If you take the moving train car as a state of rest, then the movement is something that also moves within that moving train car. That illustrates that point with 0.75s, if something, e.g. a mini-train, moves within the moving train car also at e.g. a velocity of 0.5c / s, then the time in that mini-train slows down again by the same factor. So in examples, one must first determine what really moves from a resting state and then start calculating. So if an observer wants to determine the time along the rails from a moving train car, he determines the velocity at which the rails pass by, and can calculate the factor by which time goes faster along the rails compared to his own clock (which runs slower within that train car). But movements within that moving train car are even slower in time.
For example, if one wants to know the real positive energy of an object, one must know the correct sequence of the real motions (which one usually knows) or one must be present at the (moving) object in a resting state as a stationary observer.
If you would think the ratio in this diagram with that 0.866 is wrong, that's right, it's actually 2 diagrams on top of each other, 1 of the fast time and 1 of the motion, the slower time, which has a different ratio in units.

(Aug. 2025 added) Figure 4a (belonging at example of simultaneity above, viewed from the other observer in the train car, position of photon in train car and along the rails shown below the diagram)

(Aug. 2025 added) Explanation:
It is immediately noticeable that the observer from the train car also sees 1.5s for the photon along the rails, but the difference is that that second along the rails proceeds even more slowly than his own second; the second along the rails for the observer runs 0.866 times slower. You can see in the diagram that 1s along the rails is actually 1.15s in the train car, in other words, time passes more slowly along the rails.
As the crow flies the path of the photon along the rails and in the train car represents the same part of universal time, but along the rails there is an apparent distance of 0.433c added where the photon has never been, so it seems that the photon has traveled a longer distance.
The calculations are correct from the observer in the train car for his simultaneity, but a clock along the rails does not indicate that time because it does not really move, the train car moves more than the rails.
In geometry, you can represent the point (x₁, t₁) as a vector; in both diagrams, viewed from both observers, this vector remains the same, in fact for all observers moving at various velocities v. Reasoning from both sides leads to the same time and location quantitatively, but the time passes more slowly from both perspectives compared to their own time. The length of the observed light rays to reach each other's locations is the same and represents their own time from their own observation. Note that it is said that both vectors are the same but you see the differences in scales; this equality is therefore by definition. Both vectors are from a different frame or coordinate system, and you cannot, for example, add them together, as that would be meaningless. But in my examples of a photon with a horizontal path, these locations are not equal and the difference is called length contraction. Hence the idea of shrinking so that those locations are equal again without length contraction. And as we know with gravitational waves, matter temporarily shrinks due to a temporary increase in energy density.

(Aug. 2025, is being replaced) Figure 5 (belonging at example of simultaneity above, shrinking units and objects, (Aug. 2025 added) position of photon in train car and along the rails shown below the diagram)

Explanation:
The diagram with shrinking units and objects remains the same as the previous diagram, only with a different explanation.
All the modified Lorentz formulas that go with this, can be found in the second chapter.
t'₁ now has 1 new shrunken unit for time for 1 (fast) second, and x'₁ now has for 1c 1 new shrunken unit for space.
The length of those shrunken units in the own units can be read along the t'-axis and x'-axis, namely 0.75s and 0.75c.
(Aug. 2025) The time that the observer sees from the moving train car next to the other observer along the rails, above 0.75s, now has a separate scale and the value is now 0.5625s (0.75 x 0.75). If you used the above diagram (with adjustments) as the observer sees it from the moving train car, then that new unit would be 0.5625s.
If you replace the moving train car with a light clock of the same size, then you understand that the shrunken light clock (has a reflecting light beam) with shrunken units indicates these values.
Each time the stationary clock moves forward 1 second, the moving clock moves forward 1 new unit. So 1.33 seconds corresponds to 1.33 new units, 1.33 new units are simultaneous to 1 (fast) second, so a moving clock runs slower. And a moving ruler shrinks.
(Aug. 2025) See above for the final conclusion on shrinking, how much the time units and length units have actually shrinked.

(Aug. 2025 added) Figure 5a (belonging at example of simultaneity above, shrinking units and objects, viewed from the other observer in the train car, position of photon in train car and along the rails shown below the diagram)

(Aug. 2025 added) Explanation:
Conversely, one also sees a shrinking.
Now the vectors are no longer the same (according to definition), logically because there is shrinking (if you multiply the shrunk vector again with γ, both vectors are the same again).
It is questionable whether these diagrams are still applicable with shrinkage; there may be techniques that I encounter in general relativity on how to deal with unit conversions, etc., and I will return to that later ..
For the time being (until contraction in all directions is a fact), I would use the existing mathematics and in the frame that is really moving or appears to be moving to the observer, compensate the outcomes expressed in time and location in the old units for the new shrunk units, thus multiplying those outcomes by the shrinkage factor 1 / γ where γ is the γ from the existing mathematics. But for now, this is all just a thought, and it is possible that the theory of relativity is not yet complete.
(Sept. 2025 added) The general theory of relativity is entirely based on the assumption that both vectors are by definition the same but with different values in the same coordinate systems. So something would need to be changed mathematically.
You also see in all the diagrams viewed from the other side, that in the derivations of the physical formulas, the speed of light has been taken into account but not at the photon level. In distance, the speed of light is been accounted for, but a photon (light particle) does not seem to have traveled that entire path. However, this is due to motion; a photon moving away from you appears to have traveled a greater distance. This has been considered in the definition of time.
The train car shrinks along with the measuring stick, but if there is something else traveling with the train car further down, for example a second train car (not coupled), and one were to measure the distance between those two train cars while in motion, then the number of meters would be greater than when at rest, in other words, one might think that the space has increased. This reminded me of physical statements about space / universe.
Actually, the formulas should be the other way around, namely x' = γ . (x - v.t) and t' = γ . (t - (v.x/c²)) and the other way around (without γ) x = (x' + v.t') en t = (t' + (v.x'/c²)), then both vectors would by definition be the same again. The complete transformation formulas would then be : x' = c1 . (x - v.t) en t' = c1 . (t - (v.x/c²)) and the other way around x = c2 . (x' + v.t') and t = c2 . (t' + (v.x'/c²)) where it can be shown that c1 = 1 and c2 = γ if the observed object is actually moving more, otherwise c1 = γ and c2 = 1.
With these formulas, a few possibilities have now emerged, which are also possible with the old formulas (old γ), which align more with my own thoughts. The possibilities:
a) from the perspective of an observer near the rails, the train car moves (moves more than the rails) to the right, velocity v is positive (to the left velocity v would be negative)
b) from the perspective of an observer in the train car, it appears as if the rails are moving to the left (the rails move less than the train car), velocity v is negative (to the right the velocity v would be positive)
c) from the perspective of an observer in the train car, something is really moving in the train car, for example, a toy train is moving (moving more than the train car) at velocity v to the right, velocity v is positive (to the left, the velocity v would be negative)
Both a) and c) produce the 2 diagrams shown in figures 5 and 5a.
But in b) the shrinkage is removed in the opposite way (length contraction seems to return, but now one observes it smaller due to the shrinkage) and it appears that time passes the same as in the train car. This is logical because the clock along the rails does not move, and the energy remains the same as that of the stationary rails. But that time would also pass more slowly according to the theory of relativity has now become a visual effect and is visible on a theoretical light clock (in which a vertical beam of light or photon reflects) along the rails; time seems to pass more slowly, and time on other types of clocks that you pass fast also seems to pass more slowly because it must align with that of light, but this cannot be recorded like with actual moving clocks such as mechanical clocks or an atomic clock.
In the derivation of the Lorentz transformation formulas, also by Einstein himself, it is assumed that materials such as a ruler do not shrink but remain unchanged. Gravitational waves show that materials do indeed shrink, at least in one direction, while those materials are not in motion, so this must relate to energy increase just as it is the cause at high velocities. Because in the speed of light that everyone must experience the same under all circumstances, compelling natural laws are hidden, the Lorentz transformation formulas may need to be revised. Unfortunately, the mathematics resulting from this may also need to be revised in the general theory of relativity, which is always on the right track with what revisions. I am currently deep into understanding the general theory of relativity, and I am very curious about why Einstein came to the conclusion of shrinking with gravitational waves. Or could this be length contraction due to an increase in energy instead of just movement .. But yes, in a black hole everything shrinks to almost nothing, and whether this only happens in one direction remains the question (but it can of course) .. But because length contraction does not show the actual length, we also cannot see what it looks like in a black hole .. Because very heavy objects with a very high energy density are observed in space, and these are not oval-shaped, it seems that length contraction is still not proven ..

(Sept. 2025 added) Figure 5b (belonging at example of simultaneity above, shrinking units and objects, viewed from the other observer in the train car, position of photon in train car and along the rails shown below the diagram)

(Sept. 2025 added) Explanation: below figure 5a.

(Sept. 2025 added) Figure 5c (belonging at example of simultaneity above, shrinking units and objects, new time dilation formula explained)

(Sept. 2025 added) Explanation:
Of course the new formula (1 - (v² / c²)) as I think. Still, it took me a few days to be able to explain this difficult subject with the new formula, but others will probably be able to do it better, I need to move on to other topics.
If you see values in the diagram above that you might think are incorrect, they do not differ much from the values with the existing formula √(1 - (v² / c²)).
I deliberately took an example where the velocity of the train car is 0.75c/s, because at 0.5c/s the value 0.75 keeps recurring everywhere by coincidence, which creates confusion and potential misunderstandings, but the explanation at that velocity would be the same.
In this example, the new transformation formulas using shrinking units and objects have already been applied. I am now trying to visualize the new time delay factor used in these formulas.
Einstein himself assumed that there is no shrinkage taking place, and thus, for example, measuring rods in both systems of rails and moving train car remain the same. Since the speed of light is the same for everyone, and everyone is in motion in space, the constant speed of light must enforce other laws of nature, leading to length contraction if one does not assume shrinkage (all according to my thinking, of course, whether true or not true). As a result, events only take place at the same locations in space after applying length contraction. Length contraction has never been demonstrated in experiments, which is why I think of shrinkage; even then, events occur at the same spatial locations.
The constant speed of light for everyone means that everyone sees 1c (300,000km) of light passing by in their 1 second; if someone moves faster than another, it can only mean that their second runs slower, so their clock will run slower. In my opinion, there exists a universal time that we do not know, and everyone in motion sees a part of that universal time; that universal time or a part of it naturally runs synchronously with the opposition in space for matter, so a clock runs physically proportional slower with the light we observe. Fortunately, there is still a word to better feel the slowing down of time, namely duration. As time moves slower, the duration increases, so moments are simultaneous if they have the same duration. Therefore, for example, 1 fast second can be simultaneous with half a slow second (if time is moving half as slowly), the total duration of both is the same. Therefore, universal time is the same for everyone in the universe, the concept of duration is the same for everyone in the universe. Universal time can be seen as the distance traveled by a photon (light particle) since the Big Bang; the corresponding universal second u is the fastest second that exists, and again, the speed of light applies: 1c/1u. Could you slow down so much that you are virtually standing still compared to the point of the Big Bang? In my opinion (see website) no, then you would lose so much energy that you would end up as a photon, and you know that speed.
According to Einstein, moments are simultaneous as seen from one observer A and another observer B if a ray of light is reflected from A to B, the time this takes as seen from A is divided by 2 and is t, and A and B are then simultaneous at t (from A's perspective). If now a clock at B runs slower, for example, if A is stationary and B is moving more, then a clock at A can indicate more time than that clock at B, for example, 1 second at B runs slower than at A. If you conduct these experiments between 2 observers who are both stationary on Earth, then they are always simultaneous, so clocks run the same for both and from the perspective of both observers.
In my opinion, you should not divide the time mentioned above by 2, but compare it with the observed universal time, using a reflecting light ray (for simplicity, take 1 photon, a light particle) and determine how much time that light ray loses as seen from observer A at B. For example, A reflects a light ray for 1 second (the distance between A and B is 1c) and then observes that B, who is moving, loses half a second during that 1 second as observed by B. Then, 1 second at A is simultaneous with half a second at B. That light ray of 1 second from A arrives after 2 seconds, and that at B loses 2 times half a second (to and from). In this example, it is now clearer; it is indeed difficult (or actually not anymore?).
I have indicated in red 1.5 seconds of light (1 photon) along the rails in the universal time as it is observed along the rails or on Earth. The moving train car observes another part of that universal time along the rails.
In the train car, the distance of 1.5c of a photon along the rails or in the train car, as observed by an observer along the rails, is observed as 0.375c, namely (1 - v) . 1.5c = 0.375c, you are moving with the photon so you observe a shorter distance. Freeze this moment and reason how much time that reflecting light ray of 1.5c in the train car must lose as the observer along the rails reason, that is (1 + v) . 0.375c = 0.65625c. This is the elapsed time indicated by the clock (in the case of light, the distance traveled is also the time) at the front of the train car (x' = 0), so after 1.5 seconds this time is 0.65625s and thus after 3 seconds it is 2 x 0.65625s = 1.3125s. The time dilation factor is thus (1 - v) . (1 + v) = (1 - (v² / c²)) (c = 1), in this case 0.4375 (the new γ is then 2.286), so in the train car after 1.5 seconds, 0.4375 . 1.5s = 0.65625 seconds have passed. Here (1 - v) = 0.25 and (1 + v) = 1.75. This time can be seen graphically as the intersection point of t' with t of the train car and the rails (x' = 0).
I can imagine that someone thinks, if the train car reaches 2.25c after 3 seconds, then that reflective point in the train car is at 2.625c, which is indeed 1.5c. (1 + v) = 2.625c, what time is indicated in the train car, that is 2 x 0.65625s = 1.3125s. When the front of the train car (with the photon) and the photon pass each other along the rails, that clock shows 0.75 seconds in the train car (0.375 : 1.75 = 0.214, then is x = 1.5 - 0.214 = 1.286 and t = 1.7214, x' = 0 and t' = 0.75). You also see 3 seconds for both when the photon returns, then x = 0 and only then are the times the same t' = t, but note that those are 3 slow seconds and 3 fast seconds (the same duration). This is due to the (1 + v) observation of distance, where a fake distance is recorded where the photon has never been.
I can also understand that it is difficult to grasp why 1.5c at 1.5s is simultaneous with 0.375c and 0.375s while on the clock at the front of the train car 0.65625s has passed. That is simpler than you think. For all observers B in the train car, the elapsed universal time is the same. However, a stationary observer A along the rails starts his stopwatch at the point where the train car passes by. It is logical that if an observer B is sitting further back in the train car, the elapsed universal time must be more compensated for the distance difference, so this universal time is less than at the front of the train car during measurement, being least at a distance of 0c. This therefore becomes the purest measurement of how a clock runs inside the train car, and this cannot be checked by reflecting a light ray, but can be measured inside the train car at a minimal distance greater than 0c.
Just to check that reflection in numbers for completeness. So if you let a light ray of 1.5c reflect along the rails, it does not lose any extra universal time back and forth, so 1.5c remains 1.5c, and the light ray returns after 3 seconds. If you do that in the train car, then the point 0.375c is the only reflection point at 1.5c in a straight line, this loses first 1.5c . 0.25 = 0.375c and back 0.375c . 1.75 = 0.65625c and that is the elapsed clock time inside the train car. If you do that the other way around with a light ray of 1.5c back from the reflection point, then this loses first 1.5c . 1.75 = 2.625c and back 2.625c . 0.25 = 0.65625c. Do you want to know how the piece from 0.214c to the meeting point of the photon and the front of the train car took place? That is at reflection 0.214c . 1.75 = 0.3745c and 0.3745c . 0.25 = 0.093625c, so that took 0.093625s, 0.65625s + 0.093625s = 0.749875s, which I have therefore called 0.75s on the total elapsed clock time.
If I want to complete this theory with shrinkage, then there must be shrinkage in directions other than the direction of motion (x). In the direction of motion, you can reason it purely with universal time; in other directions, you have to assume that you can use the same calculations, so with velocity v, since time passes the same in all directions, in fact, the speed v represents the increase in energy, and that determines the time, so also vertically. It must also be the case that you see a photon moving in the y direction (which you can also view as the time t' corresponding to a photon in the x direction) in the train car, also moving in time along the rails by an observer; I had already thought about this in figure 1. After a few days of thinking, I realize that this figure 1 is based on a misunderstanding, as I believe in universal time; everyone always observes the same part of universal time, just as we experience 1 second here on Earth. So if I want to observe a vertical photon of the shrunk train car in time along the rails, I need to remove the shrinkage from the train car, then reason how one would observe the photon again in the old situation within the train car and through the known Lorentz triangle from figure 1, you end up with a distance traveled of 1c or 1 second. Namely, shrinkage affects matter but never universal time, only the observation of it, which is always the same in your own time. With such topics, you can easily be wrong hundreds of times in your thinking.
A photon always travels along the path of universal time, but we observe that photon at the same spatial location, yet covering a part of universal time depending on the velocity of the frame from which we are observing, in our example along the rails (frame = Earth) or the train car (frame is the train car within the Earth frame). In figure 1, the hypotenuse is 1c and corresponds to 1 second along the rails. A photon moving vertically upward in the old situation where the train car has not shrunken reaches 0.866c in height while a distance of 1c is observed along the rails; here the well-known Lorentz triangle applies. But the time dilation factor is now different, yet the path of 1c along the rails must still be observed. The photon now comes up at only 0.75c from the shrunken train car; if that photon is to be observed again along the path of 1c along the rails, we must filter out the shrinkage factor from the height (1 / γ), so 0.75c becomes 0.866c, and then we have the Lorentz triangle again and now know the location of the photon as observed along the rails. Not entirely correct yet, see the conclusion below, you can also observe the same universal time at y' level.
(Oct. 2025, final conclusion and while retaining the Lorentz triangle, various other scenarios offered no real solution) It still bothers me, the difference between the vertical and horizontal observation of universal time when looking at the Lorentz triangle; there must be something general that is the same for both directions. I think the following. Einstein ignored shrinkage and either found or explained with the transformation formula (Lorentz had already found that in electromagnetism) the simultaneity in horizontal and vertical directions, but this had the consequence that two photons (which represent universal time, call them universal photons, each photon is a universal photon) are not at the same positions horizontally but are vertically, and horizontally this leads to the phenomenon of length contraction. This theory (so not Einstein's) leads to the shrinkage of matter as observed with gravitational waves (predicted by Einstein) and theoretically in black holes. In that case, photons are still observed at the same horizontal position but no longer vertically; there is no length contraction anymore, but there is still shrinkage. In general, one can say that only matter shrinks, but universal time remains unchanged. However, I make a conceptual error here when looking vertically. I have to admit that a few days ago I had to conclude that I was wrong about the new time dilation formula because it only worked vertically, at least if I don't require the same location of the universal photon. The idea of the shift in synchronization of simultaneity in the vertical direction is actually correct, but it is intertwined with vertical length expansion / contraction, read on. Figure 5d actually shows this (I think). The Lorentz triangle is actually nothing more than the only mathematical triangle in which the light path on the hypotenuse in its own time is equal to the number of seconds in the horizontal movement, again in its own time. There are 2 vertical situations; horizontally, there are no more problems. In situation 1, the universal photon is the photon at 0.75c high from the train car; along the rails, this is observed through vertical length expansion at 0.866c high. In situation 2, the universal photon is at 0.866c high from the rails, in the train car this is observed as 0.75c high due to vertical length contraction. So, in my opinion, a universal photon can only be present at one location, and the other observation is purely visual, which does correspond with reality with an actual second universal photon. The visual effect is probably somewhat quantum mechanical because I assume this visual effect can be confirmed in experiments, making it really seem as if a photon is present at that location. Have I now shifted the problem from horizontal length contraction to vertical length expansion / contraction? Yes, but now there is a theory about shrinkage and universal time. But I think that the length contraction / expansion only concerns photons; perhaps you should call it something else (e.g. light path contraction / expansion), and thus not the matter, which simply shrinks and is observed as such. Finally, I can proceed with the feeling that I have now fully mapped out this piece, both matter shrinking with an increase in energy as well as the observed time, which is a part of universal time. True or not true.
The transformation formulas are: y' = y . (√(1 / γ)) = y . (√(1 - v²)); x' = x – (v . t); t' = t - (v . x); for a photon, y' = t'. The calculations for the observed distance traveled of 1.50c by that universal photon for the observer along the rails are: x' = 0; t = 2; x = 0,5 . 2 = 1,0; t' = y' = 1,732 . 0,866 = 1,50; y = 1,50 / 0,866 = 1,732; t' = y' = 0 and x = 0 when t = 0.

(Oct. 2025 added) Figure 5d (belonging to the example of simultaneity above, and shrinkage vertically, thus perpendicular to the direction of motion, the Lorentz triangle continues to hold)

(Oct. 2025 added) Explanation: below figure 5c.

(Sept. 2025 added) Figure 5e (belonging at example of simultaneity above, without / with shrinking units and objects, viewed from the observer along the rails, position of photon in train car and along the rails)

(Sept. 2025 added) Explanation:
For a good overview, I have illustrated here how you see a photon moving from right to left in the train car simultaneously with a photon along the rails.
This example is both without shrinking of units and objects, and with it, then everything remains the same except that the photon starts at 0.75c and ends at 0.75s.
All moments of simultaneity are indicated.
Due to the length contraction (without shrinkage), the photon must start at 0.866c (otherwise at 0.75c) in the train car and at 1c along the rails. They then arrive respectively at 0.866s (otherwise at 0.75s) and 1s.
I can understand that someone thinks, from 0s you get a different picture like in figures 4 and 5. But you get the same picture in reverse if you let the train car travel backward and the photon along the rails as well, then 0s also starts there, but at other starting locations this is different because of the simultaneity that enforces that. You also see here that both photons have again traveled the same path (of the universal time), which is only possible due to those differing starting times (in their own frames like train car and rails).

5.

Evaluation, 1 year later (updated December 2023)

The old version of this (simple explanation Einstein's theory of relativity) website can be found in this web archive. But I have been able to include the most recent content in a subdomain "archivarix.from-einstein-to-the-united-nations.eu", I don't want to index this subdomain so copy the name by yourself in the browser, login details are fetun / vcndfheu@#$

In the meantime, the English version of this website can no longer be found in Google (since Dec. 2023 also no longer in Bing), may have to do with my other topic (power of veto)! Still findable in other search engines. Unfortunately, the EU does not have its own search engine and the USA determines almost everything in the world! So we are still a province of the USA, but I am still glad that we in the EU spend more money on social affairs so that every citizen gets better off and money is not only spent on the sickly expansion of power!

After a 1-year break, I'm still looking forward to the topic again (it's going to be autumn / winter again), but I'm focusing more on quantum mechanics and on the topic of timelessness that started my interest 10 years ago (see "An analysis of quantum mechanics" above). By timelessness I do not mean that we are immortal in physical form, we can only exist in physical form in time and have an expiration date (see chapter 2, everything that experiences time exists in material form or positive energy). Possibly we may continue to exist in a different form.

I am going to reread my old text from the web archive and to process important things (personally important for me, it is a kind of private blog) or correcting in the above text. I've read that now.