จะมีประกาศเกี่ยวกับ cEh ปรากฏขึ้นที่นี่ในอีกไม่กี่วันข้างหน้า โปรดรอสักครู่
Four weeks and one day have passed, thank you all for your understanding and anticipation.
Now a brief revisit to my personal past, or a short story about how I became a cEh fan. Quite a while ago, Myself, a noob in astrophysics and cosmology, like many of you, became interested in some simple questions about black holes. When these initial questions faded with the advent of the first answers from popular science, online lectures, and textbooks by world-renowned scientists, a belief emerged that these answers represented only minor additions and slight adjustments to what was previously known. Metaphorically, my then understanding of cosmology, gravity, motion was like a poorly straightened piece of fabric on a tailor’s table. A little effort is needed to smooth out the creases, and physics is ready again… déjà vu, the idea of almost-finished physics was already discussed more than a century ago. One of the responses claimed that a classical black hole is not some celestial body within our universe, but another universe smaller than ours (in mass, size, and formation time), and the intersection of our universe and the black hole’s universe is the Schwazschild sphere. Almost immediately, it became clear that the hypothesis of the existence of other universes within ours, even if forced to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, would not be accepted by the scientific community. Furthermore, it turned out that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics were in clear conflict, creating a need for what I now call cEh. Perhaps cEh would have remained my personal “ding an sich.” As I mentioned in previous posts, over time, I realized that within the cEh framework, gravity can be controlled, and that this control, with the necessary level of technology, could open the possibility of extremely rapid acceleration to enormous speeds, practically inaccessible even to thermonuclear engines, and of abrupt maneuvering in space. It became clear that a gravity engine could be created. From that moment on, my extremely negative attitude toward the reality of ancient vimanas and modern UAPs changed to an extremely positive one. From that moment on, I became a fan of cEh. Maybe I’m a fan too slowly, perhaps. Maybe you’ll fan more quickly, perhaps.
Why cEh and not the long-awaited theory of everything from the cGh Cube of Theoretical Physics—whose axes represent the three fundamental constants: the speed of light (c), the Newtonian constant of gravitation (G), and the Planck constant (h)? For me, the answer is obvious, because the Newtonian constant of gravity (G) is not a fundamental constant for any state of the expanding universe, but is a “floating” fundamental constant for each individual state of the expanding universe and is determined by the total energy of the universe and the time since the formation of that universe. The speed of light (c) in cEh is defined not as exactly 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum, but as the maximum speed of travel in spacetime, exactly one Planck length in one Planck time. The Planck constant (h), or more precisely, the reduced Planck constant (h-bar), in cEh is not simply an intrinsic form of angular momentum carried by elementary particles. It is a rotational momentum arising from rotation in the plane of non-spatial dimensions. This is why cEh is orthogonally five-dimensional, three long spatial dimensions and two short non-spatial dimensions. Eventually, the scientific community, and even the geek community, might accept cEh, if not as a law, then as a theory or at least as a hypothesis worthy of minimal attention. But this is impossible; it is non-scientific. Why? Because the cEh metric signature, unlike … theories, is not (−,+,+,+) but (+,+,+,+,+).
The next post will discuss in detail the reason for replacing the metric signature with (−,+,+,+) with (+,+,+,+,+). Briefly: Adopting the metric signature (−,+,+,+) means a reduction in the longitudinal spatial size and an extension of the temporal size of a body moving in spacetime, and an increase in energy proportional to the reduction in the longitudinal spatial size (the Lorentz factor). All well and good until we consider that it’s not an abstract rod that’s moving, but rather very real elementary particles, for which there is an inversely proportional relationship between size and momentum, as well as between energy and time. That is, an increase in energy and an extension of the temporal size of an elementary particle moving in spacetime contradict the foundations of quantum physics and must be corrected … in the next post