New Book! Debunking Simultaneity Paradox and Solving Double Slit Experiment
In this book we apply principles of ontological mathematics to heal cognitive disparity in science
We get rid of the simultaneity paradox in relativity theory which returns a principle of reality to science, and then we use what we learned to solve the double-slit experiment without having to refer to ontological randomness and probability in a quasi-reality.
Humanity has suffered from cognitive disparity in science for over one-hundred years, since the time that the Simultaneity Paradox was first introduced.
This paradox sent modern scientific thinking into a tailspin of cognitive dissonance from which it never recovered.
It is time for Ontological Mathematics to demonstrate some practical applications and to begin healing the error.
See more here climateofsophistry.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Robert Beatty
| #
Joseph Postma
Thank you for summarising your latest book on video for us to view, and for sharing your thoughts. The book ‘Debunking Simultaneity Paradox and Solving Double Slit Experiment’ is a mathematical treaties debunking Einstein’s space time theory, and includes a science favorite regarding light slits.
The math part is similar to the work Stephen Crothers has completed over the years.
You both obviously, know your math very well. This raises the question: What are the limitations to mathematical interpretation?
In my opinion, the best interpretation of what is really happening is through observing the available physical information, and then applying math to support those observations. This comment applies to politics as well as science. It covers fields which grow on a daily basis – especially when it comes to cosmological observations. Using graphics is far more convincing than simply relying on words for such explanations. My recent research is an example of this at https://www.bosmin.com/PSL/GravityVectors.pdf
Now we have the Hubble and Webb telescope images, which Einstein and Galileo, to name but two, would have given their eyeteeth for such information. We have that access almost as quickly as it is found.
I consider: ‘The past is history. The present is real, and the future is speculation’. Mathematics is best used to confirm an observation, rather than predict a speculation. The error inherent in the latter application is amply demonstrated by the IPCC’s inaccurate global temperature predictions.
Reply